Section 406 IPC vs Section 316 BNS — Criminal Breach of Trust

# Section 406 IPC vs Section 316 BNS — Criminal Breach of Trust

Criminal breach of trust (CBT) is a widely invoked offence in India, arising from situations where a person entrusted with property or dominion over property dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to their own use. Under the IPC, the punishment was provided under **Section 406** (read with Section 405 for definition). Under the BNS, the corresponding provision is **Section 316**.

**Note:** The BNS Section 316 covers criminal breach of trust. There is some overlap in section numbering in various unofficial compilations. Section 316 BNS corresponds to Section 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Section 420 IPC) corresponds to Section 318 BNS. Readers should verify against the official gazette for the latest section mappings.

Section Text

Section 406 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

> "Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Section 316 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

> Section 316 BNS provides for punishment of criminal breach of trust in substantially the same terms — imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.

Plain Language Explanation

Criminal breach of trust occurs when a person who has been entrusted with property or given dominion over property dishonestly misappropriates that property, converts it for their own use, or disposes of it in violation of the trust reposed in them or of any direction of law or legal contract.

The key element is **entrustment** — the property must have been placed in the accused's care or control. This is what distinguishes CBT from theft (where the accused takes property without consent) and from cheating (where the accused deceives someone into parting with property).

Common examples include: an agent misappropriating funds collected on behalf of the principal, an employee misusing company property for personal gain, a partner diverting partnership funds, or a tenant selling furniture entrusted by the landlord.

Key Ingredients / Elements

1. **Entrustment of property** — The accused must have been entrusted with property or given dominion over property.

2. **Dishonest misappropriation or conversion** — The accused must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to their own use.

3. **Violation of trust, law, or legal contract** — The misappropriation must be in violation of the terms of the entrustment, or a legal direction, or the terms of a contract.

4. **Dishonest intention** — The accused must have acted with a dishonest intention (intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss).

IPC vs BNS Comparison Table

| Feature | Section 406 IPC | Section 316 BNS |

|---|---|---|

| **Offence** | Criminal breach of trust | Criminal breach of trust |

| **Punishment** | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both |

| **CBT by carrier, wharfinger, warehouse-keeper** | Section 407 IPC | Corresponding provision in BNS |

| **CBT by clerk or servant** | Section 408 IPC | Corresponding provision in BNS |

| **CBT by public servant, banker, merchant, agent** | Section 409 IPC | Corresponding provision in BNS |

| **Cognizable** | No | Cognizable as per BNSS schedule |

| **Bailable** | Yes | Bailable |

| **Triable by** | Magistrate First Class | Magistrate First Class |

| **Compoundable** | Yes (by person to whom property was entrusted, with court permission) | Yes (with court permission) |

| **Substantive change** | — | No substantive change in punishment or definition |

Key Differences and Observations

The BNS has **retained the substance of Section 406 IPC** without material modification. The punishment (up to 3 years or fine or both) and the definition of criminal breach of trust remain the same.

The aggravated forms of CBT are also retained:

- CBT by carriers, warehouse-keepers, etc. (corresponding to Section 407 IPC).

- CBT by a clerk or servant (corresponding to Section 408 IPC) — up to 7 years.

- CBT by a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney, or agent (corresponding to Section 409 IPC) — up to life imprisonment or 10 years with fine.

These graduated punishments reflect the differing levels of trust involved and the positions of the offenders.

Important Judgments

1. **R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821** — The Supreme Court extensively discussed the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and held that the entrustment need not be express — it can be implied from the circumstances and the nature of the relationship.

2. **Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 2 SCR 720** — The Court discussed the distinction between civil liability (breach of contract) and criminal breach of trust, holding that every breach of contract does not amount to CBT — there must be dishonest intention at the time of or before the misappropriation.

3. **Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397** — Discussed CBT in the context of streedhan (a woman's property) entrusted to the husband or in-laws at the time of marriage, holding that dishonest misappropriation of streedhan constitutes CBT.

4. **Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575** — The Court held that the existence of "entrustment" is the foundation of the offence. Without entrustment, there is no CBT — the case may fall under some other offence like theft or misappropriation.

5. **S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2229** — Discussed the meaning of "dominion over property" and held that it includes any form of control or authority over property, not just physical possession.

Practical Implications

- **For legal practitioners:** The threshold issue in every CBT case is establishing "entrustment." If entrustment is not proved, the charge falls. Defence strategies typically focus on: (a) denying entrustment, (b) showing that the use of property was within the terms of the entrustment, or (c) showing absence of dishonest intention. In commercial disputes, the line between civil breach of contract and criminal breach of trust is often thin and hotly contested.

- **For accused persons:** CBT is a bailable and compoundable offence (in its basic form under Section 406/316). Compounding can resolve the matter, and the return of the entrusted property strengthens the case for compounding.

- **For persons entrusting property:** Documentary evidence of entrustment (written agreements, receipts, acknowledgments) is crucial. Without clear evidence of entrustment, proving CBT becomes difficult.

- **For law enforcement:** CBT complaints must be carefully evaluated to distinguish genuine criminal conduct from civil disputes. The presence of dishonest intention, as opposed to inability to return property due to financial difficulties, is a critical factor.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the punishment for criminal breach of trust changed under BNS?

No. The punishment for basic CBT remains imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. The punishments for aggravated forms (CBT by servant, public servant, banker, etc.) also remain the same.

What is the difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating?

In CBT, the accused comes into possession of property **lawfully through entrustment** and then dishonestly misappropriates it. In cheating, the accused obtains property **through deception** from the very beginning — the victim parts with property because of a false representation. The timing and nature of the dishonest intention differ: in CBT, the dishonest intention may arise after receiving the property; in cheating, the deception exists from the outset.

Can criminal breach of trust be settled between parties?

Yes. Basic CBT under Section 406 IPC / Section 316 BNS is a compoundable offence. The person who entrusted the property can agree to compound the case with the permission of the court. This usually involves the return of the property or payment of its value.

Is every failure to return money or property criminal breach of trust?

No. Not every failure to return money or property constitutes CBT. There must be **dishonest intention** to misappropriate. If the failure to return is due to genuine financial difficulties, a bonafide dispute about the terms of the agreement, or circumstances beyond the accused's control, it may be a civil matter rather than a criminal offence.

---

*This content is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, consult a qualified legal professional. Content is compliant with Bar Council of India guidelines on legal information sharing.*