THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8576 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 403/34 I.P.C. Private complaint ﬁled by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Subject matter of the complaint is sale of Ac.0.52 cents of wet land, which is trust property by A1 and his brother, to A2 by registered sale deed dated 23.09.2006. A2 in his turn resold the said property in favour of A3 by registered sale deed dated 18.06.2007. A1 and his brother Sundar Rao, who are the executants of the sale deed in favour of A2, are no more. A1 died subsequent to filing of this petition. A3 is nephew of A1. A3’s sister was married by A2. Original trustees under the registered trust deed dated 01.08.1946 are no more. A1 and the de facto complainant are sons of original trustees. It is stated that A1 and his brother were in actual management of the trust property. The property being trust property and its sale by A1 and his brother in favour of A2, who in turn sold the same to A3, are not in dispute. Admittedly, neither A1 nor his brother Sundar Rao, obtained any permission from the District Court for sale of the trust property. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that for about forty years, the property stood registered in the name of A1 and his brother and their predecessors in revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed for the trust property were issued in their names and that therefore, A2 bonoﬁde purchased the property believing the property to be that of A1 and his brother, Sundar Rao. The trust deed constituting the trust is also a registered one. Inspite of it, A1 and his brother being trustees, have ﬂouted the trust and committed breach of trust by sale of the trust property. Though it is pleaded that A1 and his brother had to sell the trust property as they spent huge amounts for renovation of the shelter created under the trust, it cannot be a valid defence for the criminal breach of trust. Nothing prevented them from obtaining prior permission/sanction of the District Court under the appropriate provisions of the trust Act to sell the property. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[1] of the Supreme Court that even though in this case there is breach of trust, the question is whether it amounts to criminal breach of trust as such. It is further contended that facts of this case would constitute a case of civil breach of trust and not criminal breach of trust. The supreme Court noticed that a breach of trust is both a civil and a criminal offence. It has to be seen whether breach of trust alleged in this case is predominantly of civil in nature. Admittedly, A2 is the beneﬁciary of the crime of breach of trust under the sale deed dated 23.09.2006 and ultimately, the proceeds of criminal breach of trust landed in A3’s possession. Quick disposals of the trust property from A1 to A2 and then from A2 to A3 would prima facie indicate bad intention on the part of the parties. Relationship among A1 to A3 assumes importance at this stage. The transactions relating to the trust property entered among A1 to A3 indicate that their intention is to see that the trust property is converted into private property by indulging in the sales. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is triable oﬀence in this case and it is not a case for quashing the complaint. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:02.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8576 of 2009 Dt:02.12.2011 ysk [1] AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 709