KK (N/A) 31 December 2009

Criminal Breach of trust

In 2006, I filed a criminal breach of trust, section 406, against one of my own relative. I entrusted Rs 15+ lakh of money in the 90s. When I demanded this money back, the accused evaded.

The accused took anticipatory bail and filed a petition to quash my FIR. However, the High court returned a verdict in my favour by stating that amount was indeed entrusted to the accused by me and hence my section 406 FIR cannot be quashed.

Now the case is progressing in the district court. All the witness have their statements recorded in court. Now most of the cross examination is over.

In general, I have provided proof for

(a) Amount entrusted - The accused had already accepted that he recieved a sum of Rs 15+ Lakh. In the meanwhile, I have provided some proof for amount entrusted to the accused..

(b) Evidence supporting that the amount was entrustment: I have provided documents supporting the fact that the amount handed over to the accused will be returned back to me upon demand.

Here are my question:

(a) Can a lower court (in my case District court) overturn a verdict of the higher court (i.e., High Court) ?

(b) As the accused has already admitted to recieving the amount in High Court, can that be produced as a Valid Evidence in the Lower Court ?

(d) If the accused is awarded a jail sentence, what are his other options available to do a Rathore type of escapade ?

TIA for all your help.

Reply Follow

3 Replies

(Guest)

Generally lower court also supports High Court's verdict. As you have evidence definately you can get justice but not in a single payment. Accused may request the court give time and pay in instalments. Once he will accept all his wrongs before Hon'ble judge, his punishment may be very less.

Parveen Kr. Aggarwal (Advocate) 31 December 2009

(a) Although lower court cannot overturn the verdict of a higher court but in your case the verdict of high court was provisional in view of the fact that it was passed in a quashment petition before recording of evidence. After recording of evidence, if the lower court finds that the evidence is not sufficient for conviction, it may acquit the accused.

(b) Although acknoledgement of amount by accused may have some effect before the trial court but the case cannot be decided solely on this ground.

(d) The accused has remede of appeal against conviction.

Sanjay Malik (Manager- Legal & Compliance ) 04 January 2010

its all depend on the evidence recorded by the trial court whether they are sufficiet for conviction or not. Because High Court order was not full and final it was at the intial stage and evidence those you have produced were not with the High Court at that time.But if you have provided proper evidence than the trail court also be in your favour.

As far as concerned about your money back , it is not possible as you know it's criminal case and penal provision is there. so the accused will get punishment in terms of jail.It is the discratinary power of the court u/s 357 to provide some compensation to you or it may be or may not be. Even if court provide compensation in that case also not the full payment.