High Time Police Officers Are Given Training On Distinction Between 'Cheating' & 'Criminal Breach Of Trust' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 23) suggested that police officers across the country should be imparted proper training in law to understand the fine distinction between the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. “It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed."It is indeed very sad to note that even after these many years, the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating," the Court added.The Court directed the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Union of India and also to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Union of India.The offence of cheating was covered by Section 420 IPC (S.318 BNS) and criminal breach of trust by S.406 IPC (S.316 BNS).The Court said that as and when the case is registered via FIR than it becomes the responsibility of the Police to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations leveled by the informant indeed fall under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Also, it expressed dismay over a common practice adopted by police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. Whereas, for the magistrates, the Court said that it becomes their responsibility when a case arises from a private complaint to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The aforesaid observation of the Apex Court came while deciding an appeal preferred by a company and its officer bearers against the High Court's decision not to quash the process issued under Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) by the magistrate for the offence committed under Section 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The allegation labeled against the appellants was that they failed to make payment towards the sale of horse grains and oats over a period of time supplied by the complainant. By holding that both the Magistrate and High Court committed an error in justifying the issuance of process for an offence punishable under Section 406/420 of IPC, the Court said that the evidence led in support of it shows essential ingredients of the offences alleged are absent.In support, the Court explained the distinction between the criminal breach of trust and cheating, and reasoned why the offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out in the instant case."There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously."The court reasoned that since there was no entrustment of property (being a basic requirement for the offence of criminal breach of trust), therefore there cannot be an offence made out under Section 406 IPC. “The reason being that indisputably there is no entrustment of any property in the case at hand. It is not even the case of the complainant that any property was lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The case of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that the price of the goods sold by him has not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 of the IPC goes out of picture. According to the complainant, the invoices raised by him were not cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is also made out.”, the Court observed. “From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases...

High Time Police Officers Are Given Training On Distinction Between 'Cheating' & 'Criminal Breach Of Trust' : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags