Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa

Read the given passage very carefully and answer the question

Section 405 incorporated under the Indian Penal Code defines elaborately the offence of the criminal breach of trust. It states that in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it must be established that the accused was entrusted with the property or with the dominion or power over the property of another person. Accordingly, a relationship is created between the transferor and the transferee, where the transferor remains the legal owner of the property and the transferee is bestowed with the custody of such property. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment in case of a breach of trust, whereas Sections 407 to 409 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the cases of aggravated forms of criminal breach of trust. For instance, in case of breach of trust by carrier, wharfinger, i.e. a manager of a place where ships may be fastened by chain or anchor to load or unload the cargo, or warehouse-keeper, or by a clerk or servant, or by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent, etc., the punishment may extend up to seven years of imprisonment with or without fine.

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code requires doing something with respect to property that would indicate either misappropriation or conversion or disposal in contravention of any legal contract. A mere dispute of civil nature will not attract the provisions of the Sections of the criminal breach of trust.

Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code elaborates upon one of the serious forms of the criminal breach of trust and penalizes any person who is either a clerk or a servant and commits the offence of the criminal breach of trust. 

Qquestion

Offence of Criminal breach of Trust is committed against which kind of property?

 

Option: 1

Moveable property only


Option: 2

Immovable property


Option: 3

Both Moveable and Immovable property

 


Option: 4

There is a contradiction of opinions within various High Court interpretations

 


Answers (1)

best_answer

 In the case of R K Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court clarified that the word 'property' is used in the Code in a much wider sense and not limited to 'moveable property'. If not expressly given like in offence of theft the interpretation means that the offence is applicable to both kinds of property.

 

 

Posted by

Pankaj Sanodiya

View full answer