Entrustment is essential for criminal breach of trust; a sale for a specified purpose alone is not enough.

Entrustment is essential to criminal breach of trust, and a mere sale of goods for a specified purpose does not satisfy that requirement. The cement was supplied to the contractor in an ordinary commercial transaction, and after delivery the Government retained no proprietary right, dominion, or continuing control over it. The record also did not disclose a fiduciary relationship or other basis for entrustment. On that footing, the prosecution failed to establish the element necessary to sustain a conviction for criminal breach of trust, and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved entrustment of the cement within the meaning of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, so as to sustain a conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the cement was supplied to the contractor in the course of a normal commercial transaction of sale, even though it was intended for use in a particular construction work. After delivery, the Government had no proprietary right, dominion, or continuing control over the cement. The relationship disclosed by the record did not amount to a fiduciary relationship, and a mere sale with a restricted purpose did not constitute entrustment. Since entrustment is a necessary element of criminal breach of trust, its absence was decisive.

Conclusion: Entrustment was not proved and the conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction of sale does not amount to entrustment merely because the property is supplied for a specified purpose; criminal breach of trust cannot be made out unless the prosecution proves that the accused was entrusted with property or dominion over it in a fiduciary setting.

---