1980 (8) TMI 202 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
2. Interpretation of the legal requirements for establishing criminal breach of trust in the absence of statutory rules.
3. Validity of grounds for quashing the proceedings against the respondents.
4. Application of legal principles from previous judgments to determine the existence of criminal breach of trust.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a teacher at a school in Calcutta, filed a complaint against the Secretary and Head Master of the school for misappropriation of provident fund money. The charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondents by the Presidency Magistrate after a judicial inquiry and examination of witnesses. However, a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the charge and proceedings against the respondents, citing the absence of a Provident Fund Committee and rules under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, as grounds for the decision.

2. The Supreme Court held that the grounds cited for quashing the proceedings were not valid. The Court emphasized that the absence of statutory rules does not negate the existence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to previous judgments, the Court clarified that the creation of a trust relationship does not require adherence to all technicalities of trust law. The Court also highlighted a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which emphasized that the act of informing employees about their contributions to a provident fund scheme and subsequently deducting and retaining the funds constitutes criminal breach of trust.

3. The Court concluded that the learned Judge's decision to quash the charge was erroneous. The Court agreed with the legal principles established in previous judgments and found that the impugned order was incorrect. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the order quashing the charge against the respondents was set aside. Additionally, the Court directed for the expedited trial of the case due to its age, ensuring timely resolution of the matter.