Mahabir Parshad vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

Mahabir Parshad has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the charges framed against him under sections 406, 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code, by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, vide impugned order dated May 21, 1984.

A challan under sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner was presented by the police before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, on the allegations that the District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, had entrusted palm oil tins to him for distribution to the ration card holders at controlled rates, but instead of distributing the oil tins to the ration card holders the petitioner sold the oil in black market and forged thumb impressions and signatures of the card holders in the Distribution Register of sale kept by him. During investigation, the Distribution Register was taken into possession by the police. The Director, Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban, after comparisons, reported that the signatures and the thumb impressions on the register did not tally with the thumb impressions and signatures of the cardholders.

Upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate was of the opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed offences triable under section 406, 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and he consequently framed the charges under these sections against him.

At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the prosecution allegations no case under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner. This contention is not devoid of merit. Main ingredient of an offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is that the accused has committed breach of trust. In other words he should have misappropriated the property entrusted to him. In the present case the element of entrustment is missing. It is admitted that by an agreement of distribution of palm oil, the District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, sold the oil to the petitioner and not merely entrusted it to him. Thus, by virtue of the said agreement the petitioner cannot be regarded as an agent of the Government in respect of the oil purchased by him under the agreement. No doubt, the petitioner was required to sell the oil to the ration cardholders in accordance with the agreement of distribution, but the violation of the terms of the agreement did not amount to criminal breach of trust. The property in the oil had passed to the petitioner and he did not hold the same in trust for the Government. That being so, there was no criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405, Indian Penal Code, and as such the petitioner cannot be considered to have committed an offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code.

I, however, do not find any infirmity in the charges being framed against the petitioner under sections 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Upon considering the police report and the document accompanying it under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Magistrate arrived at the opinion that the petitioner by obtaining false thumb impressions and signatures on the Distribution Register intended to cause damage or injury to the cardholders who were deprived of the benefits of the palm oil at the controlled rate and thereby obtained wrongful gain by selling the oil in the black market. Further, that he had used the forged register for showing that he had distributed the palm oil in accordance with the terms of the agreement of distribution. The trial Magistrate, therefore, considered that there was ground for presuming the petitioner had committed offences under section 465 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Arriving at this conclusion, charges under these sections were framed against the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the framing of these charges amounts to abuse of process of Court to call for interference of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

For the aforesaid reasons, the charge under section 406, Indian Penal Code framed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Charki Dadri, against the petitioner is quashed. The rest of the impugned order and charges framed thereunder are affirmed. This petition is disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate for further proceedings on December 10,1984.