TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a partner can be prosecuted under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for alleged criminal breach of trust in respect of partnership property received or held in the ordinary course of partnership dealings; (ii) Whether the earlier Full Bench decisions treating such prosecution as maintainable in ordinary cases were correctly decided.
Issue (i): Whether a partner can be prosecuted under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for alleged criminal breach of trust in respect of partnership property received or held in the ordinary course of partnership dealings.
Analysis: Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment or dominion over property in a fiduciary capacity. Under the ordinary incidents of partnership, partnership property is held and used by the partners jointly for the business, and no partner has a defined, ascertainable share in any specific asset until accounts are taken and liabilities are adjusted. The proper remedy of a partner is an account, not a criminal charge for not accounting for assets or moneys retained in the partnership course. Only where a special agreement creates a specific entrustment or exclusive dominion in favour of one partner can the statutory ingredients potentially be satisfied.
Conclusion: The charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not maintainable against a partner merely because he received or retained partnership property in the ordinary course of partnership business; in the absence of special entrustment, the answer is against maintainability and in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the earlier Full Bench decisions treating such prosecution as maintainable in ordinary cases were correctly decided.
Analysis: The earlier authorities were confined and did not establish a general rule that every partner dealing with partnership assets can be prosecuted under criminal breach of trust provisions. Read as laying down such a general proposition, they are inconsistent with the nature of partnership property, the absence of a defined individual share before dissolution and accounting, and the absence of entrustment in the ordinary course of partnership. They may survive only to the limited extent that a special agreement creates a true entrustment or dominion over property.
Conclusion: The earlier decisions are not correctly decided insofar as they are understood to permit ordinary prosecutions of partners under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for partnership property; they are only sustainable where special arrangements create entrustment.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed because the alleged facts did not disclose the necessary entrustment or fiduciary holding required for criminal breach of trust in the context of ordinary partnership dealings.
Ratio Decidendi: In the ordinary course of partnership, a partner does not hold partnership property in a fiduciary capacity or under an entrustment sufficient to attract criminal breach of trust unless a special agreement creates a distinct and enforceable entrustment or exclusive dominion over specific property.
TaxTMI 
