Mere Delay In Execution Of Work Not Criminal Breach Of Trust, Particularly In Absence Of Agreement Stipulating Time Frame: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of two individuals charged with criminal breach of trust, ruling that mere delay in the execution of work does not constitute criminal breach of trust, especially in the absence of an agreement specifying a time frame.

Petitioner was entrusted with a sum for construction of school. As per complainant, the construction was delayed.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary presiding over the case observed, “Unless there is oral or documentary evidence to show that construction of the school was to be completed within a particular stipulated time, such an inference cannot be drawn by the Court that there was delay in execution of the work, and the amount had been misappropriated...In order to make an offence of criminal breach of trust, prosecution is to establish that the property was misappropriated by the person with whom the same was entrusted in violation to the mode in which trust was to be discharged."

The case arose from an FIR alleging that the petitioners were entrusted with Rs. 3,78,250/- for the construction of a school building in the financial year 2006-07. The amount was transferred to the account of the accused persons, but the building was not completed.

Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC claimed that the building had been constructed and children were residing there. The trial court acquitted the accused under Section 420 of the IPC but convicted them under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC. This conviction was affirmed on appeal, prompting the current criminal revision.

The petitioners argued that Section 409 of the IPC is the major section while Section 406 is a minor section, and thus, under Section 71 of the IPC read with Section 222 of the CrPC, conviction under the minor section is uncalled for if convicted under the major section.

They also contended that the work agreement had not been exhibited, and prosecution evidence indicated that the work had been completed. The only allegation was a delay in execution, but without the work agreement, it could not be proven that the delay was wilful.

Wile allowing the Criminal Revision petition, the court emphasized that for the offense to be established, the prosecution must demonstrate that the property was misappropriated by the person entrusted with it, in violation of the prescribed mode of discharging the trust. It added, "...In the absence of any positive evidence on work agreement, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the petitioners under the offence charged, is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.”

Case Title: Shankar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 116

Click Here To Read Judgement