Section 406 IPC – Criminal Breach of Trust

What is Section 406 IPC? What is Criminal Breach of Trust?

One of the companions 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) complaint is Section 406 IPC. Though knowledge about 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is shared fairly commonly in meetings and various other forums, companion sections are somehow missed. In this article, I list what this section is and what needs to be proved by the prosecution.

Section 406 IPC Punishment for criminal breach of  trust

Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

What is Criminal Breach of Trust:

Section 406 IPC describes, criminal breach of trust and it reads as follows:

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

In other words.

• One has entrusted some property in the care of some person, thereby giving control to that person over that property.
• Such a person dishonestly misappropriates the property or converts it to their use and
• Such person dishonestly uses or disposes of the property in a manner that they are not allowed under the law and
• If there was any sort of contract between the two regarding the property, he/ she would be guilty if the property was disposed of against the contract.

Breaking it into Details:

• There has to be some property*
• The said property must be entrusted to someone with or without any contract
• The person refuses to return/ restore the property to the rightful owner when demanded.

* Under Hindu Law, a wife has the right to own, use, and dispose of her Stridhan of her own free will. In circumstances where the wife decides to move out of her matrimonial house, it is imperative that she be handed over what was rightfully hers on demand or otherwise. If the husband or any of his relatives either misappropriates or refuses to return the same or its value to the wife, the section criminal breach of trust is attracted.

Stridhan explained: It refers to any property gifted to a woman during, around or anytime after the marriage, or any property left to her in a will. It must be stressed that it also includes the property gifted to her by the in-laws during, around or anytime after the marriage, besides gifts from siblings and parents. She is the “absolute owner” of such property and can handle it however she likes. She has all the right to sell it, gift it or do anything else without referring to her husband or any of the in-laws. A gift given to the bride for sole use or joint usage with anyone else also forms part of Stridhan. (For example, furniture gifted to the bride may be a thing of joint usage by the family, but it is her Stridhan only). This Article on this website explains this concept better.

Even when the husband or any of the wife’s in-laws has used/disposed of such property under extreme distress, the husband is morally bound to restore the property or its value as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Ingredients which need to be proved by prosecution:

1. That there existed a property.
2. That the property belonged to a person other than the accused.
3. That the dominion of the property was shifted from complainant to the accused.
4. That there has been a request/ legal obligation to restore the property to the complainant/ lawful owner of the property.
5. That the said property was demanded by the complainant/ lawful owner.
6. That the accused having misappropriated/ converted to its own use/ disposed the property refuses to restore the property to the complainant/ lawful owner.

What kind of proofs are admissible/ needed to prove Sec 406 IPC:

1. 1. The complainant must prove the existence of the property. The list of Stridhan in cases of 498a (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)/ sec 406 IPC must be proved by way of bills/ testimony of the seller etc. A list made at the time of marriage per Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Maintenance of lists to the bride and bridegroom) Rules, 1985 can be one such proof. But other proofs are required. Even without any such list, the existence of property can be proved.

2. The handing over of the dominion of the said property to the accused has to be proved with specifics, such as date, time, and event. This can be done by either documentary or oral evidence.
3. That the complainant demanded back the said property must be proved with specifics of date, time, and event. Either documentary or oral evidence can also do this.
4. That the accused has refused to return the said property and has misappropriated or converted it for his use or disposed of it dishonestly. For this reason, sometimes direct proof is not available. Once the dominion is proved to the accused, he must explain where the property is. Otherwise, a strong presumption against him can be drawn, and the accused can be convicted when all other things are proved.

The complaints are primarily vague in many regards. The complainant draws a long list of Stridhan items, which is mainly not supported by the bills. Similarly, the complaint is mostly lacking in details like when the dominion of Stridhan articles was handed over to the accused or when the same was demanded back. These issues have been a reason for quashing many complaints and have also resulted in the discharge of all/ some of the accused.

In the Nutshell:

When the complainant’s wife alleged that the gold ornaments given as dowry were handed over to the accused and in-laws, the following details must be there to bring conviction:

1. What article was handed over to whom
2. When they were handed over
3. When they were demanded back

[Neelu Chopra Vs Bharti 2010 Cri LJ 448 (SC), Palash Chatterjee  2007 Cri LJ 4215 (Cal.)]

 

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us