2012 (1) TMI 352 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition Dismissed: Charges Upheld for Breach of Trust; Court Affirms Complaint Within Limitation Period.

The HC dismissed the petition, affirming the Ld. ASJ's decision to uphold charges under section 406 IPC. The court clarified that a second revision ... Criminal breach of trust - entrustment - limitation for taking cognizance - computation from date of complaint - statutory bar against second revision under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. - inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the ConstitutionStatutory bar against second revision under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. - inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution - Maintainability of the petition under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction despite prior revision in the Sessions Court - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised the clear statutory bar in section 397(3) Cr.P.C. against a second revision where a first revision has been availed in the Court of Sessions. While the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances - for example, where there is abuse of process, serious miscarriage of justice, non-compliance with mandatory provisions, or an apparent mistake by the revisional court. The Court examined whether the present matter fell within those narrow parameters and found no such exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to permit a second revision against the order framing charge under section 406 IPC. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Petition not maintainable under inherent jurisdiction as no exceptional circumstance was shown to override the bar in section 397(3) Cr.P.C.Limitation for taking cognizance - computation from date of complaint - criminal breach of trust - Whether the complaint was time barred for the offence of criminal breach of trust - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the period of limitation for taking cognizance in respect of an offence under section 406 IPC is three years. The determinative point is when the period is to be reckoned. The Court held that limitation should be computed from the date of the complaint and not from the date on which the Magistrate subsequently took cognizance or issued process. Reliance was placed on the practical considerations that subsequent court processes (examination, inquiry, issuance of process) may take time beyond the complainant's control; therefore it would be unreasonable to treat a complaint presented within limitation as barred merely because cognizance was taken later. On the facts, the complainant filed the police complaint within the limitation period and the petitioner's contention of time bar failed. [Paras 8, 9]Complaint was not time barred; limitation is computed from the date of the complaint.Criminal breach of trust - entrustment - Whether a prima facie case under section 406 IPC was made out on the ground of entrustment and subsequent refusal to return the property - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the ingredients of section 405 IPC (defining criminal breach of trust) and reiterated that entrustment need not invoke technical rules of trust law; it suffices that property was handed over to another with dominion or custody 'in any manner' and as a result of confidence reposed. On the pleaded facts, the petitioner took possession of the complainant's file in good faith for reconciliation of accounts with a promise to return it, thereafter refused to return it despite repeated demands and resorted to blackmail. The Court held that these averments satisfy the element of entrustment and refusal to return such that a prima facie case for framing charge under section 406 IPC existed. The cited authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguishable on their facts where entrustment was absent. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]Prima facie case under section 406 IPC was made out on the facts; framing of charge was not vitiated.Final Conclusion: The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 was dismissed: the High Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the face of the statutory bar against second revision, held the complaint to be within limitation, and found no infirmity in the framing of charge for criminal breach of trust; no interference with the impugned order was warranted. Issues:1. Maintainability of the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution.2. Interpretation of section 397(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the bar on second revision petition.3. Application of limitation period under section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. for offense under section 406 IPC.4. Analysis of the ingredient of 'entrustment' in a criminal breach of trust case under section 406 IPC.Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution:The petitioner challenged the order of the Ld. ASJ upholding the decision of the Ld. MM to frame charges under section 406 IPC. The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it was essentially a second revision petition barred under section 397(3) Cr. P.C. The court clarified that while the power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions in revision matters is concurrent, section 397(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits a second revision petition. However, the High Court can invoke inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional cases. The court cited various judgments to emphasize that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of abuse of process, miscarriage of justice, or non-compliance with legal provisions.Issue 2: Interpretation of section 397(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the bar on second revision petition:The court clarified that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. aims to secure finality in revision proceedings and bars a second revision petition after an unsuccessful attempt in the Court of Sessions. The court highlighted that the High Court's inherent powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, as laid down in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts.Issue 3: Application of limitation period under section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. for offense under section 406 IPC:The court analyzed the limitation period for offenses under section 406 IPC, emphasizing that the date of the complaint is crucial for computing the limitation period, not the date of cognizance. The court rejected the argument that the complaint was time-barred, considering the circumstances of the case where the accused refused to return the property despite requests, leading to the filing of the complaint within the limitation period.Issue 4: Analysis of the ingredient of 'entrustment' in a criminal breach of trust case under section 406 IPC:Regarding the element of 'entrustment' in a criminal breach of trust case, the court explained that entrustment does not require the technicalities of trust law but signifies a relationship where property is handed over to another with confidence. The court found that in the present case, entrustment was established as the accused took the property in good faith but failed to return it despite repeated requests. The court distinguished previous cases where the element of entrustment was lacking, leading to a different legal outcome.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference based on the legal analysis of the issues presented.