Entrustment and dishonest retention can prove criminal breach of trust without proof of exact misappropriation.

Entrustment of money to a postmaster for purchase of National Savings Certificates, followed by retention without applying it for the intended purpose, was treated as sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust; proof of the precise manner of personal misappropriation was not required once dishonest retention was shown. The discussion also notes that the Section 313 CrPC examination was adequate where the accused was confronted with the material evidence, admitted receipt and later deposit of the money with interest, and no prejudice from any omission was demonstrated. On that reasoning, the conviction was upheld and the High Court's contrary view on both issues was rejected, with sentence reduced in light of age and circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether criminal breach of trust was made out on proof of entrustment and retention of the amount without its use for the intended purpose; (ii) whether any omission in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the conviction.

Issue (i): whether criminal breach of trust was made out on proof of entrustment and retention of the amount without its use for the intended purpose

Analysis: The amount was entrusted to the accused in his capacity as a post master for purchase of National Savings Certificates. The evidence showed that the amount was retained and not applied for the intended purpose, and the actual manner of misappropriation need not be proved once entrustment and dishonest retention are established. The High Court erred in treating proof of a specific personal use as necessary. Concurrent findings of the trial court and the Sessions Judge supported the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was proved and the acquittal by the High Court could not stand.

Issue (ii): whether any omission in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the conviction

Analysis: The accused had been confronted with the material evidence and had admitted receipt of the money and its later deposit with interest, while only repeating a defence that was rejected by the trial court. The questions put under Section 313 were sufficient to meet the evidence appearing against him, and no prejudice was shown. The High Court therefore wrongly held that the conviction was affected by infraction of Section 313.

Conclusion: The conviction was not vitiated by any defect in the Section 313 examination.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was restored, but the sentence was reduced by substituting a heavier fine in place of further imprisonment, reflecting the age of the respondent and the surrounding circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Once entrustment and dishonest retention of entrusted property are proved, the prosecution is not required to establish the precise manner of misappropriation, and a conviction will not be vitiated in the absence of demonstrated prejudice from the Section 313 examination.

---