Entrustment and unlawful agreement are essential for criminal breach of trust and conspiracy; convictions failed on lawful CANCIGO transactions.

Criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy require proof of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation and an unlawful agreement; those ingredients were not established for the CANCIGO transactions because the dealings were carried out with broker funds, with institutional knowledge and participation, and the transfer restriction was only contractual. The related civil proceeding had upheld the transaction as valid, and no grievance by the name-holding entities was shown, so the convictions on those counts could not stand. Receiving stolen property also failed because the units were purchased with the appellant's own funds and were not shown to be stolen property. The Prevention of Corruption Act charges likewise failed, as no unlawful pecuniary advantage or independent illegality was proved, and the accused were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy were made out against the appellants in respect of the CANCIGO transactions. (ii) Whether the convictions under the offence of receiving stolen property and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy were made out against the appellants in respect of the CANCIGO transactions.

Analysis: The transactions were found to have been carried out with funds of the broker and with the knowledge and participation of the concerned institutions. The restriction on transfer under the scheme was contractual in nature and did not amount to an absolute legal bar. No complaint or grievance was shown from the entities in whose name the units stood, and the transaction had already been upheld as valid in the related civil proceeding. In the absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or proof of an unlawful agreement, the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy were not established.

Conclusion: The appellants were not guilty of criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions under the offence of receiving stolen property and the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the units were purchased with the appellant's own funds and were not shown to be stolen property, the offence of receiving or retaining stolen property was not made out. The alleged acceptance and processing of the transactions by the bank official was also found to be within the course of authorised dealings, and no unlawful pecuniary advantage or independent illegality was proved. The prosecution thus failed to establish the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Conclusion: The convictions under the offence of receiving stolen property and under the Prevention of Corruption Act were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the convictions were set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for criminal breach of trust or conspiracy cannot stand without proof of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, and an unlawful agreement, and a contractual transfer restriction by itself does not create a criminal offence where the underlying transaction is otherwise lawful.

---