When offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out?

Mere retention of the amount for a short period,

without the element of dishonesty cannot make it an

offence of criminal breach of trust. There cannot be a

presumption of dishonest or fraudulent intention. A

temporary retention of money, in these contexts, cannot

invite a criminal offence, because of the absence of mens

rea. There was no intention on the part of the appellant

to commit any criminal misappropriation or criminal

breach of trust, as held in Thankappan(supra). Matters

being so, this is a fit case wherein the conviction and

sentence passed by the court below are liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

   PRESENT:

  MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

Dated:  18TH DAY OF JULY2016

  CRL.A.No. 1098 of 2009 

   P.P. MOHANAN, Vs   STATE OF KERALA,

Print Page

Whether offence of cheating is made out if there is no allegation of dishonesty or cheating?

 After giving a plain reading to the complaint and taking it at its face value, one cannot come to any other conclusion other then the following. The entire complaint taken on the whole is indicative of a dispute between the parties which is purely of a civil nature. No where in the said complaint, it has been stated that the petitioners herein had acted dishonestly or had the intention of cheating the 2nd respondent/complainant. The whole of the complaint only speaks about the business transaction of giving raw coffee by the petitioners and delivery of cured coffee by the 2nd respondent and there being some violation of certain conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and causing loss to the complainant. As such it cannot be said from the reading of the said complaint without either adding or subtracting anything to the complaint that the said complaint disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged therein.

Karnataka High Court

Lmj International Limited, (A ... vs State Of Karnataka And Shylaja ... on 6 July, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 4437

Bench: V Jagannathan

Print Page

Whether previous remark of dishonesty is washed off by subsequent promotion?

The Honble Apex Court in the case of Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2000) 8 SCC 395 had an occasion to deal with the washing off theory. It was held that if adverse remarks relate to a period, prior to an earlier promotion, they indeed can be treated as having lost their sting and being rendered weak subject to the rider that if they relate to dishonesty or lack of integrity, they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether (emphasise mine).

In the context of enunciation by the Honble Apex Court, the fact of the instant case indicate that the petitioner's misconduct for tampering with a certificate issued by the respondent Bank's Jaipur Office in a departmental enquiry culminated in punishment and placing him in the lowest rank of the pay scale. The misconduct pertained to the dishonesty of the petitioner and would not cease to be relevant for assessment of his suitability for promotion from Class-IV to the post of Assistant Care Taker in the Class-III cadre of the Bank even subsequent to his promotion within Class-IV service. 

Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench

Patel Ram Meena vs . Reserve Bank Of India Through ... on 27 July, 2015

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1784/2015

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Print Page