Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
1987 (4) TMI 406 - HC - Companies Law
Issues: Allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust regarding security deposits made by employees of a company.
The judgment delivered by M. K. Chawla J. of the High Court of Delhi pertains to a case where a petition/complaint was filed against the Managing Director, directors, Deputy Manager (Finance), and Chartered Accountant of a company under sections 406, 409, and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a circular inviting security deposits from employees, which were not deposited as required by law. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating a lack of evidence showing misappropriation. The petitioner contended that non-payment of the security amount itself proved misappropriation, but the respondents argued there was no evidence to support the allegations. The defense highlighted the absence of proof of dishonest intention, a crucial element for criminal misappropriation and breach of trust under sections 405 and 406 of the IPC. The court emphasized that mere retention or delay in payment may not establish dishonest intention or the offense. The accused claimed the security amount was credited to the complainant's account with interest, as he failed to surrender the receipt or execute an indemnity bond, as required. The court noted that the company had complied with the provisions of the Companies Act regarding deposits, as confirmed by the auditors, which negated the petitioner's contentions. The judgment upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision, finding it in line with legal principles and supported by the evidence on record, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition. ---
|