Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant
Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant. Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a ter The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 408, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 316 Criminal breach of trust Text carried over almost unchanged 86%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 2
- Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act s. 28 Disqualification of membership etc. of committees
- Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act s. 17
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
J. Ramesh Kamath vs Mohana Kurup
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal charges involving misappropriation of organizational funds by office bearers in positions of fiduciary trust cannot be characterized as purely personal or civil disputes amenable to quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on settlement agreements, even when accepted by all parties including complaining members and current office bearers. The High Court must refuse to quash criminal proceedings in such cases because they involve crimes of breach of trust against the organization and society, and the timing of settlement after completion of investigation and charge-sheet filing demands that the trial court be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on evidence presented at trial. The distinction between Section 320 (compounding) and Section 482 (inherent jurisdiction) does not permit circumvention of the principles that serious offences involving breach of organizational trust and fiduciary duty are not amenable to settlement, regardless of whether all parties subsequently agree to compromise.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant - relevant to charges against accused as office bearers having custodial responsibility for funds
-
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases involving heinous or serious offences, corruption, or moral turpitude by a candidate in the affidavit filed with nomination papers constitutes undue influence and corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, as it directly interferes with the free exercise of electoral right by depriving voters of their fundamental right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates, thereby preventing them from making informed and advised electoral choices. Once such non-disclosure is established in an election petition, the election must be declared null and void under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act without requiring proof that the result was materially affected.
On this section: Dishonest misappropriation by servant or agent, charges against appellant
-
H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR vs H.N.PURA TOWN P.S
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution establishes that the accused was entrusted with public funds, had a liability to account for the amount received, and failed to do so, the burden shifts to the accused to explain his conduct by preponderance of probability. If the accused fails to provide a credible explanation, the charge of misappropriation is brought home to him. Furthermore, refund of misappropriated funds does not absolve a government servant or public official from criminal liability under Section 408 IPC, and age is not a valid ground for showing leniency in such cases.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by person in possession of public property. The court applied this section to establish that the appellant, as secretary of the cooperative society, was entrusted with public funds and misappropriated them dishonestly.
-
Karmveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving allegations of misappropriation of funds by an employee entrusted with collection duties, the High Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR merely on the ground that the accused has filed a counter-complaint regarding a separate incident of theft. The serious nature of the allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and misappropriation warrants investigation, and the High Court will not interfere with the FIR unless there are compelling grounds to do so.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust by employee - applied to petitioner's status as field officer
-
Sadhu Ram Gainda vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who has suffered nearly four years of judicial custody while awaiting trial, where the trial is progressing slowly with only a fraction of prosecution witnesses examined and is unlikely to conclude in the near future, may be granted bail notwithstanding serious charges and risk factors such as a co-accused being a proclaimed offender, provided stringent bail conditions are imposed to ensure appearance and prevent interference with the trial.
On this section: Charge of criminal breach of trust by person in possession of property
-
Malikajan Mohammad Shekh vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences do not carry capital punishment or life imprisonment, and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the criminal complaint, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail while safeguarding the investigation via tailored conditions.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and <sup>2</sup> by the judgment dated 18.11.2009 in C.C.No.675 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, for the offences under section 408 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to "IPC"), the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 filed the criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. as present The revision case was admitted on 26.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners …
Questions about Section 408
What have the courts held on Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code?
J. Ramesh Kamath vs Mohana Kurup (04 May 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant - relevant to charges against accused as office bearers having custodial responsibility for funds. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 408, section 408 IPC, section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 408 in bns and ipc 408 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with J. Ramesh Kamath vs Mohana Kurup (04 May 2016).
What should I read with Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 316 (Criminal breach of trust), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 408, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.