Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act Can't Be Granted For Offence Of Criminal Breach Of Trust: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be granted to a person convicted of criminal breach of trust, as doing so would encourage people to misappropriate the property of other persons and the trust upon which a civil society is based would be affected.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to a person guilty of committing the criminal breach of trust would encourage people to misappropriate the property of other persons, and the safety of the property entrusted to other persons cannot be ensured. This would affect the trust upon which a civil society is based.”

Background Facts:

The Case originated from a complaint filed by Nokh ram against the accused, Hukam Ram. The complainant stated that he had engaged the accused with him for the work of construction. Pursuant, to which he gave the room of the key where the construction material was kept to the accused. However, when the complainant asked the accused for the key of the room, he told the complainant that the keys of the room were at his home and the material had been stolen.

The complainant got suspicious and later asked the accused if the room was locked how did a theft take place. Upon asking around one of the village lady, told the complainant that she saw the accused and the owner of the room loading the construction material in a car. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint against the accused.

During investigation some of the material was found, which was sold by the accused to a third party, following which the police prepared a chargesheet and submitted it in the trial court.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for criminal breach trust under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months and pay a fine of ₹1500/-

Being aggrieved by the trial court's decision, the accused filed an appeal before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kullu. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision and stated that the accused was entrusted with the keys of the room. He was asked to guard the room. However he sold the construction material and committed criminal breach of trust.

Thereafter, the accused filed a revision petition before the High Court. The accused contended that as per the witness, both accused and owner of the room were seen carrying the construction material, however no complaint was filed against the owner. He further contended that he should have been granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Findings:

The court held that the construction material was given to the accused, and when it went missing, it was the duty of the accused to prove what happened to him as the burden of proof had shifted upon him. However, the accused did not do so and was accused guilty of criminal breach of trust.

In Lilu Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1998, the Panjab & Haryana High court held that “Expectations of the society from the courts will stand shattered if an accused who is proved to have embezzled panchayat funds to the tune of Rs. 13,766.92 Paise in the year 1984, when the value of money was quite high, is released on probation of good conduct.”

Thus, the court held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act can't be granted to the accused as he committed the offence after due consideration. He was entrusted with the construction material and he sold it to third party.

The Court remarked that “Granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to a person guilty of committing the criminal breach of trust would encourage people to misappropriate the property of other persons, and the safety of the property entrusted to other persons cannot be ensured. This would affect the trust upon which a civil society is based.”

Therefore, the Court rejected the revision petition filed by the accused and stated that no interference is required with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Further, the court noted that “Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and pay a fine of ₹1500/-. This sentence is not excessive. The accused had committed criminal breach of trust of the articles worth ₹65,000/-. He was only asked to pay ₹1500/-, which is nothing as compared to the amount misappropriated by him. The sentence of 3 months can hardly be said to be deterrent in nature”.

Case Name: Hukam Ram v/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2023

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order