Definition
Dishonest misappropriation of property by a person entrusted with it.
Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property by a person who was entrusted with it or has dominion over it.
Statutory Definition
BNS 2023, Section 316 (formerly IPC Section 405).
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'criminalis' (of crime — from 'crimen', accusation, crime) and Old French 'brise' (breaking) and 'trust' (Old Norse 'traust', confidence, help — from Proto-Germanic *traust). 'Criminal breach of trust' is the criminal breaking of a confidence — using a position of trust (entrusted with property) for dishonest purposes. Unlike ordinary 'breach of trust' in equity, the criminal version requires dishonest intent.
Full Legal Analysis
Criminal breach of trust (CBT) is the dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one's own use of property that another person has entrusted to the accused. Section 316 of the BNS, 2023 (formerly Section 405 IPC) provides: 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.
Two essential elements: (1) Entrustment — the accused must have been entrusted with the property or must have dominion over it. This distinguishes CBT from theft: in theft, the accused takes property from the owner's possession; in CBT, the accused already has lawful possession of the property by virtue of entrustment. (2) Dishonest misappropriation — the accused then dishonestly misappropriates the property (uses it for their own benefit), converts it (changes its form and applies it to their own use), or deals with it contrary to the directions of law or the trust agreement.
The Supreme Court held that to establish CBT, the prosecution must prove both the factum of entrustment and the subsequent dishonest misappropriation. The Court emphasised that mere failure to account for funds does not by itself constitute CBT — the prosecution must establish that the failure was dishonest. A bank manager who was entrusted with depositors' funds and diverted them for personal use was held guilty of CBT because both elements (entrustment by the bank's customers and dishonest diversion) were proved. The Court also held that in cases of CBT by employees, the employment contract that created the trust relationship must be established, and the dishonest misappropriation must be shown to be in breach of that trust.
CBT vs cheating: in CBT, the accused already has lawful possession of the property (by entrustment) and then misappropriates it. In cheating, the accused uses deception to induce the victim to hand over property. The critical distinction: entrustment came first, then misappropriation (CBT); vs deception came first, then delivery (cheating). A company director who receives funds for a specific purpose and diverts them is guilty of CBT; a person who misrepresents a business opportunity to obtain funds is guilty of cheating.
For advocates, CBT cases arise in: (1) corporate fraud — directors, managers, trustees who misappropriate company or client funds; (2) bank fraud — bank officers diverting customer deposits; (3) lawyer's accounts — an advocate who receives money for a court fee/settlement and uses it personally; (4) employee theft — an employee entrusted with cash or valuable property who steals it; and (5) public servant CBT — aggravated CBT by public servants, carrying higher punishment.
This Term in Indian Statutes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 2023
"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, commits 'criminal breach of trust'."
Ram Narayan Popli: both entrustment AND dishonest misappropriation must be proved; mere failure to account is not CBT; CBT vs cheating distinction; aggravated CBT by public servant/banker (Section 317 BNS) — 7 years
