Blog

Case Title: Rajappan Assari v. State of Kerala

 Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1177 OF 2005

Appearance

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Advocate Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir

Counsel for the Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor C.N. Prabhakaran

CORAM : P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

Introduction

The High Court of Kerala restated that there shall be an expressed and implied trust of property or entrustment for any specific purpose to attract the liability for criminal breach of trust as provided under Section 406 IPC.

Facts of the case

This revision is by the accused who was convicted for the offense under Section 406 IPC by both the trial Magistrate and the first appellate court.

The prosecution case is that the accused along with other accused were conducting a partnership business in the name of M/s Rajappan Achary and had accepted a fixed deposit from different persons offering high interest @ 24% and after getting the deposit, misappropriated the same for their use. PW3 is one among the victims, who set the criminal law in motion on the allegation of misappropriation of a deposit of Rs.1,54,345/-.

Both the courts found that the accused was guilty of offense punishable under Section 406 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years by the trial Magistrate. But it was modified by the first appellate court by imposing a lesser sentence of a fine of Rs.1,75,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the trial court and the first appellate court acquitted accused No.1 of the offenses punishable under Section 420 and 120B IPC. It is against the concurrent finding of conviction of accused No.1 for the offense punishable under Section 406 IPC and the sentence imposed, he came up in revision.

The material question raised pertains to the criminal liability that can be extended under Section 406 IPC when there is neither express nor implied trust and whether both the courts below are justified in convicting the accused for the said offense without satisfying the existence of the either express or implied trust.

There should be an express or implied trust of property or entrustment for any specific purpose to attract the criminal responsibility punishable under Section 406 IPC. The incorporated by Act 40 of 1973

Analysis of the court

t thus held that failure to comply with the agreement would not attract the offense punishable under Section 406 IPC.

The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were thus set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click to view the judgement