Ientes Aganst Property

bject o f
this provision to
I
ofhis deathtill
protect the property
the person(s)
701
entitled to it which was in
time
the
at
circumstances
ASES.hThelive step in 27 possession of «

SCd, along
live and spcnt
with namely recovery of
I CfrOmt h e
Ised, andges,
accussd
From the custody
the t
of the cartridges,
revolver of the
of mohE deceased recovery
he murder of der
of the deccascd with the fact that the handse of
n mobile accused
accused (and that he continued to use itit iphone which awas sing was using the
R l CO t
the

Hnzbt, that
the prosccution has hro
brought home the
till his
arrest), registered in
leaves
the accused charges as have been found
no room
against
hod aga
tNhIshed the accused.276 Where
Whe
was held he had mitted offence under this misused the ATM card of to
the
section.2
Of Criminal Breach of
Trust
malbreach 4051 Whoever, being in
Is
any manner entrusted
or with any dominion over property. with
a n v e r t s

tohis property, orproperty,

o w n iuse that dishonestly misappropriates
dishonestly uses or disposes of that
alation of any direction of laW prescribing the mode in which such
bedischarged, o r of any legal contract, trust
express implied, which he has made
or
the discharge of
of;such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
wching
breach of trust". person so to do,
mmits criminal
Enlanation 21.-A person, being an employer 20[of an establishment whether
nted under section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
IEmpte
roisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not| who deducts the employee's contribution
mm the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family
ausjon Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to
e been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he
ies default in the payment of such contributionto the said fund in violation ofthe
uid lavw, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution
iolation of a direction of law as aforesaid.

Explanation 2.-A person, being an employer, who deducts employees the

for credit to the Employees
atribution from the wages payable to the employee
e insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance of
under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34
ration established
entrusted with the amount
of the contribution so
to have been
De deemed default in the payment
of such contribution to the
him and if he makes the
i be deemed to have dishonestly used
shall
adviolation of the said Act, direction oflaw as
atoresaia|
T h e said contribution in violation of a

ILLUSTRATIONS
the which
law directs him
A, being dishonestly disobeys has committed eriminal
deceased person, A
voe the will of a them to his
own use.

n of tne
trust. tects according to the Will,
v and appropriate

2013
PrabH Munish Mubarv State,
Bhatnagar v State, 2007 Cr.LJ4349 (Raj). 2012 Cr LJ 413; fiom the accused
SCC 675: 20
recovered
contirmed
CI) of Delhi, (2011) 10
deceased
the Convietion
S6 (s 912. Articles
belong to
offer any
explanation. ehan deceased
of
SC could not
Stale of 2930
(Ker)-Gold Rajasthan
us discloc d i c m e n t , Accused State,2009 Cr LJ Ramesh v
Ajayanv
see
Colurt Also
eredme Alias proper. held
ofthousn was
oneof the accused.
Conviction

Sm
AhSCC 685.
h3
2014Cr LJ 378
(Utknd). 1975).
humar Kundi ate of Uttara
State of v Uttarakhand
195 9 (w.e.f.
I September
ct 40 of 1973, section 9 (w.e.f. I November
38 of
1975,
section

dtton renumbered as I byAct

hAct 33 of 1988, sectioExplanaf August 1988),.
(w.e.f. 11Augusr 1975)
Aplanation

Act 38 of 1975, section 9(w.e.f. 1Sept

27 n