Criminal Breach Of Trust And Fiduciary Duties
🏛️ Criminal Breach of Trust and Fiduciary Duties
I. Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT)
1. Definition (IPC Section 405 & 406)
Section 405 IPC:
“Whoever, being in lawful possession of property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of it in violation of any direction of law or contract, commits criminal breach of trust.”
Section 406 IPC:
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
Key Points:
Property must be entrusted to the accused.
Misappropriation must be dishonest.
Can be movable or intangible property.
2. Essential Ingredients of CBT
Entrustment: The accused must have been entrusted with property.
Possession must be lawful: Property should be in possession with the owner’s consent.
Dishonest intention: At the time of misappropriation.
Conversion or misappropriation: Using property for own benefit or against instructions.
Breach of trust: Actual violation of the trust reposed.
3. Key Points
Not every misuse of property amounts to CBT. There must be dishonest misappropriation.
CBT protects both property and the confidence of the owner.
Often overlaps with cheating, but in CBT the property is entrusted, whereas in cheating, the property is obtained by deception.
II. Fiduciary Duties
1. Definition
A fiduciary duty arises when a person (fiduciary) is entrusted with property or power to act for the benefit of another (beneficiary).
It is a relationship of trust and confidence.
Examples:
Company directors managing shareholder assets.
Trustees managing a trust property.
Agents or lawyers handling client funds.
Breach of fiduciary duty can be both civil and criminal depending on dishonesty and misappropriation.
2. Difference Between CBT and Fiduciary Breach
| Aspect | Criminal Breach of Trust | Fiduciary Breach |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Criminal | Can be Civil or Criminal |
| Legal Provision | IPC Sections 405–409 | Equity / Contract / IPC (if dishonest) |
| Entrustment | Must exist | Must exist |
| Dishonest Intention | Essential | Essential for criminal liability |
| Punishment | Imprisonment / Fine | Civil liability / sometimes criminal |
III. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan (1972 AIR 1490)
Facts:
An accountant collected money from customers for his employer but used it for personal purposes.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that CBT was complete as soon as the money was dishonestly used.
Principle: Entrustment + dishonest misappropriation = CBT.
Case 2: K.K. Verma v. State of Rajasthan (1960 AIR 1207)
Facts:
The accused, a government employee, collected fees from the public but did not deposit them to the treasury.
Held:
Court held that dishonest intention was sufficient to constitute CBT, even if the money was intended to be returned later.
Principle:
Temporary appropriation with dishonest intention = CBT.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Sarup Singh (1964 AIR 1310)
Facts:
A trustee misused funds of a religious trust for personal purposes.
Held:
Using property entrusted for personal benefit amounts to CBT under Section 405 IPC.
Court emphasized that fiduciary obligations increase responsibility.
Case 4: Chimanlal Mangaldas v. State of Gujarat (1966 SCR 784)
Facts:
Company directors misappropriated company funds.
Held:
Directors being fiduciaries of the company, their dishonest diversion of funds amounted to CBT.
Principle:
Corporate fiduciary relationship is sufficient for CBT.
Even though directors are legally empowered, misuse for personal gain is criminal.
Case 5: Raj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995)
Facts:
The accused, a bank official, transferred depositors’ money to his own account without consent.
Held:
Supreme Court held it was CBT.
Principle:
Possession of property under trust (like a bank officer holding depositor funds) + dishonest misappropriation = CBT.
Case 6: State of Maharashtra v. Dilipkumar (1998)
Facts:
A manager entrusted with company funds misused the money for personal loans.
Held:
The court held that fiduciary duties in a professional relationship are recognized under CBT provisions.
Even indirect use for personal benefit violates trust.
Case 7: State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Sathyanarayana (2001)
Facts:
An agent collected rent on behalf of the landlord but misappropriated it.
Held:
This is a classic case of CBT.
Court emphasized that the agent, as fiduciary, cannot benefit personally from entrusted property.
IV. Legal Principles from Case Law
Entrustment is essential (Som Nath Puri).
Dishonest intention at the time of misappropriation is required (K.K. Verma).
Fiduciary relationship increases responsibility (Chimanlal Mangaldas).
Temporary or delayed misappropriation counts (State of Rajasthan v. Sarup Singh).
Professional relationships like agents, directors, and bank officials are within scope (Raj Kumar Agarwal).
Breach can be criminal or civil; criminal only when dishonest intention is proven.
V. Key Sections Related to CBT & Fiduciary Duties
| Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| 405 IPC | Criminal Breach of Trust | Cognizable, imprisonment ≤ 3 years, fine or both |
| 406 IPC | Punishment for CBT | Imprisonment ≤ 3 years, fine, or both |
| 407 IPC | CBT by public servant or banker | Imprisonment ≤ 7 years, fine |
| 408 IPC | CBT by clerk, servant, or agent | Imprisonment ≤ 3 years, fine |
| 409 IPC | CBT by public servant, banker, merchant or agent | Imprisonment ≤ 10 years, fine |
VI. Summary
CBT arises from entrustment + dishonesty.
Fiduciary duties amplify responsibility; breach of trust in such positions is a serious offence.
Courts have consistently held that temporary, indirect, or unauthorized use of entrusted property is sufficient for criminal liability if done dishonestly.
Professional, corporate, and governmental positions often carry fiduciary responsibilities recognized under IPC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments