The other offence u/s 406 IOC, relates to criminal breach of Trust. Criminal breach of Trust has been defined in section 403, IPC. To constitute the offence of criminal Breach of Trust, the necessary ingredients are:

1. Entrustment if property or domination over property
2. Such Entrustment must be in Trust
3. Dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion to one's own use by the receiver of the property
4. Violation of the Law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged or violation of legal contract touching the discharge of the Trust

 As seen from the averments in the Charge Sheet, none of these ingredients have been made out,it is no doubt true that the accused is entrusted with the raw material but it was not on account of trust or safe custody, but it was only in pursuance of an agreement between the parties for preparation of finished goods.

If the accused failed to supply the finished goods and retained the raw materials, he would be liable only for breach of contract and for failure to account for the raw material supplied to him.

Therefore, taking the allegation s in the Charge Sheet, as they are, without adding or subscribing anything the alleged offences u/s 420 and 406,could not be made out. The dispute is purely civil nature. A case of breach of Trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. On a consideration of the facts in this case ,it was predominantly a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence are wanting.

Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner accused have to be quashed. The defacto complainant was at Liberty to take out steps on civil side if he was so advised.