Entrustment requirement defeated criminal breach of trust where cement was treated as purchased property, not entrusted property.

A permit-based supply of cement under a control system was treated as a purchase transaction in which property passed to the contractor. The condition that the cement had to be used for a specified work did not, by itself, create entrustment of the cement or dominion over it for purposes of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code. As entrustment is an essential ingredient of that offence, broad language in the permit could not enlarge the statutory concept to cover the facts. The convictions for criminal breach of trust and abetment therefore could not be sustained, and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the facts established an entrustment of the cement or dominion over the cement so as to sustain convictions for criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The cement was obtained by the contractor under a permit issued within a control system, but the transaction was treated as one of purchase and the property passed to him. The condition that the cement was to be used for a specified work did not, by itself, amount to entrustment of the property or of dominion over it within the meaning of the penal provision. In the absence of entrustment, the wide words relied on could not enlarge the statutory concept so as to bring the facts within criminal breach of trust.

Conclusion: The convictions could not be sustained because the essential element of entrustment was not proved, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---