Entrustment under criminal breach of trust can arise from ostensible official authority when a public servant receives money through misuse of office.

A public servant may be treated as entrusted with property for purposes of Section 409 IPC where money is received through the ostensible exercise of official authority, even if the receipt exceeded technical departmental authority. The decisive factor is the nexus between the payment and the accused's public office: if the payer parted with the money because the accused held himself out as acting officially, dominion over the property is obtained in a capacity that carries a duty to deal honestly with it. On that reasoning, such conduct may attract criminal breach of trust and Special Court jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether money received by a public servant by misuse of his apparent official authority can be treated as property entrusted to him in his capacity as a public servant so as to attract Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the Special Court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The legal test is not confined to the internal limits of departmental authority. What matters is whether the accused used his official position as the ostensible basis for receiving the money, creating a sufficient nexus between the receipt and his public office. The offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code includes situations where dominion over property is obtained through the apparent exercise of official authority and the recipient is then bound to deal honestly with it. A merely technical lack of authority to receive the money does not exclude entrustment where the payer parted with the money because the accused held himself out as acting officially.

Conclusion: The respondent was acting in his capacity as a public servant when he obtained the premiums and therefore committed an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code triable by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Entrustment under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied where a public servant, by using his ostensible official authority, obtains dominion over property in circumstances creating a duty to deal honestly with it, even if the receipt was beyond his technical departmental authority.

---