Criminal breach of trust needs dishonest conversion or misappropriation; mere retention of a security deposit does not establish the offence.

Criminal breach of trust requires prima facie material of dishonest intention and dishonest conversion or misappropriation of entrusted property; mere non-payment or retention of money is insufficient. On the facts, the security deposit was to remain with the company for a fixed period, receipts were issued, repayment was linked to surrender of the receipt, and the record did not show personal use of the ? Let's ensure no mistake. The auditor's report supported compliance, and the material did not displace the Magistrate's finding. No prima facie offence under sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out, so dismissal of the complaint was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust on the allegation that the security deposit was not refunded and was not deposited in the manner required by law.

Analysis: To attract criminal breach of trust, there must be prima facie material showing dishonest intention and dishonest conversion or misappropriation of the entrusted property. Mere non-payment or retention of money does not by itself establish the offence. On the facts proved, the circular required the deposit to remain with the company for a fixed period, receipts were issued, repayment was linked to surrender of the receipt, and the evidence did not show that the amount was retained for personal use or that the company had failed to comply with the statutory requirement. The auditor's report supported compliance, and the material on record did not displace the Magistrate's finding.

Conclusion: No prima facie offence under sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out; the dismissal of the complaint was justified and the revision failed.

---