Mere non-return of entrusted property is not criminal breach of trust without proof of dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

Mere failure to return a receipt-book entrusted to a public servant does not by itself constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC. The prosecution must prove dishonest misappropriation, conversion to personal use, or dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of law or contract. Although the receipt-book had been entrusted to the accused and was missing when charge was taken from him, the evidence did not establish any dishonest dealing with it. The conduct proved was only non-return, which could equally be explained by loss or misplacement. The conviction was therefore held unsustainable and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to return a receipt-book entrusted to a public servant amounts to criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The receipt-book was proved to have been entrusted to the appellant in his capacity as a public servant and to have been missing when charge was forcibly taken from him. However, mere non-return of entrusted property is not enough to constitute criminal breach of trust. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must prove dishonest misappropriation, conversion to own use, or dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of law or contract. The evidence did not establish any such dishonest dealing with the receipt-book; at most, it showed failure to return it, which could be attributable to loss or misplacement.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---