Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [i 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a
public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
OF TE RECEIVING OF STOLEN PROPERTY
Section 409, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 316 Criminal breach of trust Close, with changes 76%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 3
- Kerala Maritime Board Act s. 93 Persons employed under this Act to be public servants for certain purposes
- 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.
-
Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2003-01-14 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 1097/1999 (Harshad Mehta / MUL securities). Shah/Agrawal/Pasayat. A-4 Grindlays officer was convicted under s.409 for dishonestly crediting bankers' cheques into Harshad Mehta's account instead of the payee bank; majority upheld that 409 CBT-by-banker conviction. Map ipc 409 only. Do not successor-map bns 316 (mapping.csv only close 0.7555; bns 316 already filled). Do not pad 403/467/471/120B.
On this section: A bank officer who dishonestly credits customer bankers' cheques into a third party's account commits CBT by a banker under s.409 (Popli).
-
Punjab State Warehousing CORP vs Bhushan Chander
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available to employees of Government companies or public undertakings (even when such undertakings are 'State' within Article 12 of Constitution) for prosecution of offences. Furthermore, offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 409), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471) and cheating (Section 420) committed by a public servant cannot reasonably be claimed to be done in discharge of official duty; rather, the official position merely provides the opportunity for commission. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only when there is a reasonable connection between the criminal act and the discharge of official duty, or when the act can be done under colour of office. Acts directly and reasonably disconnected from official duty do not attract Section 197 protection.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust by public servant - central offence in this case; established that sanction is not required as misappropriation cannot reasonably be claimed to be in discharge of official duty
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Applies criminal breach of trust to public servants and bankers; requires proof that accused was entrusted with property and committed breach of trust; Court held that once entrustment is proved, burden shifts to accused to show property was dealt with in legally acceptable manner
-
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 public servant - applied as accused were office bearers of the association in positions of fiduciary authority
-
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant holds multiple offices and is accused of abuse of one office, sanction for prosecution is mandatory only from the authority competent to remove him from that specific office which he is alleged to have misused. If the public servant has relinquished the office allegedly abused before charge sheet is filed, no sanction is required at all, despite his continuing to hold other public offices. The requirement of sanction serves to prevent frivolous prosecutions of the specific office abused; once that office is relinquished, the protection becomes inapplicable. To require sanction from authorities controlling other unrelated offices held simultaneously would pervert the legislative intent and convert the sanction requirement into a rogue's charter enabling evasion of prosecution.
On this section: Cited as basis for FIR allegations of breach of trust by MPSIDC functionaries in extending unauthorized ICDs
-
V. V. S. Rama Sharma vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under the constitutional scheme, particularly Entry 91 of Union List covering rates of stamp duty for insurance policies, the power to prescribe insurance stamp rates belongs to Parliament. States cannot, through rule-making power or administrative action, impose restrictions on purchase of insurance stamps from authorized sources outside their borders, as this would circumvent central legislation and exceed State authority. Purchasing insurance stamps from any duly authorized licensed stamp vendor throughout the country is legally permissible and does not constitute any criminal offense under IPC Sections 420/409 or Stamp Act Sections 64/69. Consequently, an FIR alleging only such purchasing practice, without any additional element of fraud, deception, or actual deprivation of government revenue, discloses absolutely no criminal offense and can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as manifestation of malicious prosecution.
On this section: Charged as criminal breach of trust by public servants, but court found no basis as appellants performed legitimate procurement duties
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Offence of criminal breach of trust cited in the charges against accused
-
Mauvin Godinho vs State Of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The standard for framing charges under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the prima facie standard, where the probative value of evidence on all essential elements of the charge taken as a whole must be sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such elements or to consider their existence probable. At this stage, the court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh evidence as if conducting a trial. When material on record shows that policy notifications were issued without required Cabinet approval and the sequence of notifications could reasonably suggest an intent to benefit specific entities, sufficient prima facie material exists to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act even if earlier civil litigation addressed the same notifications from a different legal angle.
On this section: Criminal breach of trust. Originally charged but discharged by High Court finding no evidence of breach of trust.
-
T. Nagarajan vs State Of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Court Frames Charges Under Section 227 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, It Must Apply The Prima Facie Standard, Whereby The Probative Value Of Evidence On All Essential Elements Must Be Sufficient To Induce The Court To Believe In The Existence Of The Facts Pertaining To Those Essential Elements Or Consider Their Existence So Probable That A Prudent Man Ought To Act Upon The Supposition That Those Facts Existed. At This Stage, There Cannot Be A Roving Enquiry Into The Pros And Cons Of The Matter Or Weighing Of Evidence As If Conducting A Trial. Where Material On Record Obligates The Court To Frame Charges And Prima Facie A Case Can Be Made Out Against The Accused, The Court Should Frame Charges Without Conducting A Thorough Examination Of Merits.
On this section: Criminal Breach Of Trust By Public Servant - Discharged By High Court As No Prima Facie Case Found
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of forgery and fraud are made on the basis of website content that clearly identifies a company division's connection to its parent company through visible links and shared addresses, and when no fraudulent intent can be inferred, no deceptive transactions occurred, and no person was induced to part with property or enter contracts based on such representation, the criminal allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence under Sections 463, 468, or 471 IPC or Sections 65-66 IT Act 2000. Such criminal proceedings initiated as part of a private corporate dispute constitute abuse of court process and must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice.
On this section: Charged for criminal breach of trust; court found no evidence of misappropriation as funds went to company
-
Union of India vs Naman Singh Sekhawat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a departmental proceeding can lawfully be initiated against a government employee even after criminal acquittal on the same facts, such proceeding must be initiated bona fide with independent evidence the employer possesses and must be conducted in strict accordance with principles of natural justice and fair procedure. If the Inquiry Officer is biased or conducts the proceeding unfairly—such as by cross-examining the delinquent officer when a Presenting Officer is appointed, refusing to examine relevant defense witnesses without valid reason, or denying the employee adequate representation—the proceeding becomes void and cannot be validated by the appellate authority. Furthermore, if the criminal court has given positive findings of acquittal (not mere benefit of doubt) on the same core facts and these findings have not been contradicted by fresh evidence, the disciplinary authority cannot simply override such findings without basis. The standards of proof differ between criminal and departmental proceedings, but this does not permit the disciplinary authority to ignore conclusions of fact established before other competent authorities.
On this section: Charge of criminal breach of trust—not made out as goods were not entrusted to respondent. Court emphasized that the respondent was not entrusted with the goods and therefore this section did not apply.
-
Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants in criminal cases involving embezzlement and breach of trust have made full financial restitution, deposited the entire misappropriated amount before the court, paid fines imposed, and are advanced in age with health concerns, the appellate court has discretion to modify sentences by reducing imprisonment to the period already undergone while upholding the conviction. The restitution deposit shall be treated as compensation to the victim under Section 357 Cr.P.C. This approach balances criminal accountability, victim compensation, and humanitarian considerations in sentencing for financial crimes.
On this section: Applied to charge appellants for criminal breach of trust as managers of cooperative bank entrusted with authority to sanction loans. The section penalizes public servants or persons in positions of trust who dishonestly misappropriate property entrusted to them. Here, appellants misappropriated Rs. 5,76,000/- entrusted to them by the bank.
-
Marathappa Radhakrishna Shet vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused convicted of financial crimes such as embezzlement and forgery has made full restitution of the embezzled amount and compensated the injured party, and when the accused are elderly persons in deteriorating health, appellate courts may reduce the custodial sentence to the period already undergone by considering the totality of circumstances, while ensuring that the compensation is released to the injured party and such release does not prejudice the accused in other pending cases.
On this section: Embezzlement or criminal breach of trust by public servant or banker - applied to convict the appellants for misappropriation of Rs.43,500
-
Charanjit Kaur vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a passport application is rejected due to adverse police verification based on non-disclosure of material information, the appropriate remedy is to permit the applicant to file a fresh application with all necessary documents and proper explanation addressing the concerns raised by the passport office, rather than immediately issuing a mandamus for reissuance. The applicant must first exhaust the administrative procedure available under the Passport Act and the guidelines of the Regional Passport Office before seeking judicial intervention.
On this section: Criminal charge mentioned in the FIR that was not disclosed in the passport application, forming the basis of adverse police verification
-
Mohd. Kaleem Azad vs Vijay Singh Chauhan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The scope of a court order directing reconsideration of a case with proper hearing is limited to the specific relief prayed for in the petition (withdrawal of removal notification) and does not extend to withdrawal of collateral criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the same facts. Departmental action and criminal action are distinct and separate proceedings that can proceed simultaneously; departmental action requires opportunity of hearing before taking action, whereas criminal action does not require such hearing. For contempt jurisdiction to be exercised, there must be wilful and intentional disobedience of a clear and unambiguous court order, and the court should not go beyond the four corners of the order alleged to be flouted.
On this section: Sections under which FIR was registered; Section 409 relates to criminal breach of trust, Section 120-B relates to criminal conspiracy
-
H.d.f.c. Bank Ltd. through Mr. Jayanta Banerjee& ANR. vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Indian Penal Code does not contemplate vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not directly charged for commission of an offence. When a dispute arises from employment termination and the complainant seeks to convert it into a criminal case by making allegations of defamation and fraud against corporate officials without establishing their direct personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing, such FIR constitutes malicious prosecution and abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. The availability of civil remedies for employment disputes precludes the invocation of criminal law for the same cause of action.
On this section: Cited in FIR for criminal breach of trust; court found no evidence of this offence
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.
-
… No. 33 of 2011 registered on 12.05.2011 <span id="page-0-0"></span>1 In short "FIR" SLP(CRL.) NO. 354 OF 2019 ETC. Page 1 of 16 with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-0). - 3. Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011, dismissing the appellant's prayer for quashing of the …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that …
Questions about Section 409
What have the courts held on Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation (14 Jan 2003) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A bank officer who dishonestly credits customer bankers' cheques into a third party's account commits CBT by a banker under s.409 (Popli). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 409 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 409, section 409 IPC, section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 409 in bns and ipc 409 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation (14 Jan 2003).
What should I read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
3 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 409 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 409, 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.