The Himachal Pradesh High Court has firmly ruled that individuals convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code are not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Court emphasized that granting such relief would undermine public trust and potentially encourage dishonest behavior regarding entrusted property.
Background
The ruling came in a case involving Hukam Ram, who was convicted of misappropriating construction material entrusted to him by the complainant, Nokh Ram. The incident occurred during a construction project in which the complainant had given Hukam Ram access to a locked room containing building materials. When asked to return the key, Hukam Ram claimed the materials had been stolen, raising immediate suspicion.
Read Also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court: Bail Under NDPS Act Requires Strong Justification, Not Assumptions
Upon further inquiry, a local woman informed the complainant that she saw Hukam Ram and the owner of the room loading materials into a car. This revelation led to a formal police complaint. During the investigation, some of the stolen materials were recovered from a third party, to whom Hukam Ram had sold them.
The Trial Court convicted Hukam Ram under Section 406 IPC and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment along with a ₹1500 fine. The court held that the accused had been clearly entrusted with the materials and failed to explain their disappearance.
Read Also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders IGMC Shimla to Issue NOC to Doctor Willing to Pay Bond Amount for New Job
“The safety of the property entrusted to other persons cannot be ensured if such offenses are treated leniently. This would affect the trust upon which a civil society is based,” observed Justice Rakesh Kainthla.
Hukam Ram challenged the verdict before the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction. The appellate court reiterated that the accused was entrusted with guarding the material but instead sold it, amounting to a clear breach of trust.
Still unsatisfied, the accused approached the High Court, claiming that since the room owner was also seen with him, he should not be the sole accused. He also requested the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, asserting that the offense was not grave.
Read Also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court: Higher Pension Cannot Be Claimed for Temporary Duties Before Retirement
However, the High Court rejected this argument. The Court clarified that since the materials were entrusted solely to Hukam Ram, the burden lay on him to explain their loss. His failure to do so supported the lower court’s finding of guilt.
“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,” the Court emphasized. “Such actions shatter the faith that forms the foundation of societal and civil relationships.”
In support, the Court cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Lilu Ram vs. State of Haryana (1998), which also denied probation in a similar embezzlement case, stating that public expectations from the judiciary would be harmed if such crimes were treated leniently.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the lower court’s order. It remarked that the three-month sentence and ₹1500 fine were already lenient considering the materials misappropriated were worth ₹65,000.
“The sentence is not excessive. In fact, the fine imposed is minimal when compared to the value of the stolen goods. A light sentence like this can hardly be seen as a deterrent,” the Court concluded.
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.
