THE STATE OF (;li.J \UAT JASWA!\TL\L :\ATllAl.AL Nm·ember 23 v. F:111peror

The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The Gov ernment of Gujarat gave on contract to Bharat Sewak Samai (Gujarat) the work of construction of a building for the govern ment litho-printing press. From Exh. 20 it appears that the BSS in its turn p:ave that work on sub-contract to a firn1 known as M/s. Kaushik & Co .. though it was sought to make out that M/s. Kaushik & Co. were merely appointed to supervise the work. The firm Kaushik & Co. consisted of two partners. The respondent who is the brother of one of the partners was looking after the construction work. On 9-4-62, BSS applied to the Deputy Engi for allotment of neer ( construclion sub-division, Ahmedabad) ten tons of cement for the construction work in question. response to that application. the Deputy Engineer allotted tons ( 100 bags I of cement and the same was delivered respondent for and on behalf of BSS on I 0-4-62. All these fac1' are admitted. The further case of the prosecution is that after taking delivery of the aforementioned 100 bags of cement, the respondent deli vered at the work site sixty bags of cement and the remaining forty bags he sent to the godown of PW2 Tayabali Jiwaji. About these facts also there is no dispute. From the above facts, the appellant wants us to conclude that the respondent had committed breach of trust in respect of the forty bag~ of cement he sent to the godown of PW2. The case for the respondent is that in anticipation of allotment to BSS Kaushik & Co. had utilized for the construction work in question forty bags of cement helonging to them, and hence he sent forty c ' • I· , ·f A 8 c D 410 SUPRFME CO\;RT REPORTS [196RJ ~ SCR bag, ol c~ment to the godown of· PW2 to be stocked for and .on behalf of Kaushik & Co. The trial court disbelieved that vers1::m and convicted the respondent under s. 409 IPC. The High Court in a highly laconic judgmem allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. Bdorc examining the correctness of the Higi1 Court's judg j, necessary to mention that in this case the BSS had not ment 11 fn other words. it made any complaint against the respondent. is not the case of BSS that the respondent who took delivery of hundred bags of cement on their behalf had misappro:iriated forty bags out of the same. The case against the respondenl proceeded on the basis that the government had entrusted to him I 00 bags of cement for the purpose of being used in the construction of the building in question, but he misappropriated forty bags out of the same. Therefore, we haw to sec whether the prosecution has cstabli>hcd the entrusment pleaded and the misappropriation allc~cd We were not made aware of the conditions under which the the construction work to BSS. The written government gave agreement between the government and the BSS, if there be any. has not been produced in this case. There is also no oral evid ence in regard to the particulars of the agreement between government and the BSS. Therefore we have to proceed on the basis that the contract given to the BSS is one of those usual contracts under which it was for the contractor necessary materials. Evidently because cement was a controlled commodity in 1963. BSS had to apply for its allotment. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we have to proceed on the basis that BSS either paid for the cement in question or it' price was adjusted towards the money due to it. to secure OA the proved facts, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that after the sale of the cement in question the government had any proprietary right over the same. Nor can it be said that the transaction in question resulted in any fiduciarv relationship either between the government and BSS or between It was a nom1al transac the government and the respondent. tion of sale though the sale in question was effected by the gov ernment on the representation that cement was required for a particular purpose. The term "entrusted" found in s. 405 IPC !!Overns not onlv the words "with the property" immediately following it but also the words "or with any dominion over the property" occurring thereafter-see Velji Raghvaji P,ate/ v. Sratr of Maharashtra(') G II (ll (196~) ~ S.C.R:429 ... A B c D E F G H Gl'JARAT v. JASWANTLAL (Hegde, J.) 411 Bdor~ there can be any entrustment there must be a trust mean ing thereby an obligation aI\nexed to the ownership of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declar ed and accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. But that does not mean that such an entrust ment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trust scc Jaswantrai Mani/al Akhaney v. State of Bombay(' J. The expression 'entruslment' carries with it the implication that the per son handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence person taking the property so a~ to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an lt is true that the government had sold the cement entrustment. in question to BSS solely for the purpose of being used In connec referred to earlier. But that tion with the construction work circumstance does not make the transaction in question anything other than a sale. After delivery of the cement, the government If the purchaser or had neither any right nor dominion over it. his representative had failed to comply with the requirements of any law relating to cement control, he should have been prose cuted for the same. But we are unable to hold that there was any breach of trust. A case somewhat similar to the one before us came up for consideration before a division bench of the Calcutta High Court in Satyendra Nath Mukher;i v. Emperor('). These are the facts of that case. One Satya Sunder Mitra was a contractor. He was granted a permit by the Executive Engineer, A.RP. (Sh~1- ters), construction division, to purchase seven tons of cement from Balmer Lawrie and Company. The permit was granted on :he condition that the cement was to be used in the work connected with the construction of shelters. which work he had contracted to do for the Executiv_e Engineer. The finding in the case was that with the help of an employee of Mitra and Chaudhuri who were ba11ians of Balmer Lawrie and Company. six tons of cement were diverted and disposed of for another- purpose. The trial court convicted Satya Sunder Mitra under s. 406 IPC and another for abetting the offence committed by Satya Sunder Mitra. The High Court allowed their appeal, holding that there was no en trustment qf the cement in question within the ine<ming of term as used in s. 405 of Indian Penal Code. Tn the course of the judgment it was observed : "The permit was granted in accordance with system of control established under the Defence of India (I) [ 1956] S.C. R. 483. 498-500 (2) I.LR. [1947] I Cal. 97. SUPREME COURT RCl'<lRTS ( 1968) 2 S.C.R. Rules. under which an order has been isq1ed by the Gov ernment of India preventing selling agents rnch as Balmer from delivering any cement Lawrie and Company except under instructions from the Government or lrnm the Cement Adviser. The tr;1n;action. so far as the contractor is concerned, was one of purchase and the property in the cement clearly passed to him. No doubt he could not have obtainc<l the permit throuph the Executive Engineer if it had not been intcndc<l that the cement should be used for the purpose directed by the Engineer, but, in our opinion, in no <ense can it be said that there was any entrustmcnt either of the property or of any dominion over the property.'' We arc of the opinion that the legal position is as explained 111 that decision. The decision of rhe Kings Bench Divisicm in The King v. Grubb!' I relied on hy Mr. Dhcbar learned counscl for the appel lant docs not bear on the question under consideration. Thcrc!n. the factum of entrustment was not in dispute. The only question of bw thar arose for decision in that case was whcrher when a property is entrusted to a company, and the person directing and controliillj! the company, by whose instructions the property had passed into the possession of the company, had converted the same fraudulently. that person can be said to have committed an offence under s. I of the Larceny Act 190 I. The court answered that question in the aftirmative. • A B c D I" view of our conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the cntrustment pleaded. it io. unnecessary to consider whe ther on rhe material on record it can be concluded that the res pondent had mi"1rpropriated 40 hags of cement earlier. referred F In the r"'ulr. rhis 3ppcal foils and the same is dismi"cd. 'R.K.P.S. .-lppral di1missed . .. •(I) Jl915J 2 K.B. 683.