Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    611A (Group A) Distinguish Between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

    Uploaded by

    Zawmin Khaung
    Criminal breach of trust involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property that has been lawfully entrusted to someone. It occurs when someone violates the terms under which the property was entrusted, such as the directions of a legal contract. Cheating involves deceiving someone and intentionally inducing them to hand over property or take an action that causes harm. The key difference is that criminal breach of trust involves a violation of trust in lawful possession of property, while cheating involves deceiving someone from the outset of a transaction. Both require dishonest conduct for criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    611A (Group A) Distinguish Between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

    Uploaded by

    Zawmin Khaung
    50 views3 pages
    Criminal breach of trust involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property that has been lawfully entrusted to someone. It occurs when someone violates the terms under which the property was entrusted, such as the directions of a legal contract. Cheating involves deceiving someone and intentionally inducing them to hand over property or take an action that causes harm. The key difference is that criminal breach of trust involves a violation of trust in lawful possession of property, while cheating involves deceiving someone from the outset of a transaction. Both require dishonest conduct for criminal liability.

    Original Title

    611 A.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Criminal breach of trust involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property that has been lawfully entrusted to someone. It occurs when someone violates the terms under which the property was entrusted, such as the directions of a legal contract. Cheating involves deceiving someone and intentionally inducing them to hand over property or take an action that causes harm. The key difference is that criminal breach of trust involves a violation of trust in lawful possession of property, while cheating involves deceiving someone from the outset of a transaction. Both require dishonest conduct for criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views3 pages

    611A (Group A) Distinguish Between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

    Uploaded by

    Zawmin Khaung
    Criminal breach of trust involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property that has been lawfully entrusted to someone. It occurs when someone violates the terms under which the property was entrusted, such as the directions of a legal contract. Cheating involves deceiving someone and intentionally inducing them to hand over property or take an action that causes harm. The key difference is that criminal breach of trust involves a violation of trust in lawful possession of property, while cheating involves deceiving someone from the outset of a transaction. Both require dishonest conduct for criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    611A(group A)

    Distinguish between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating

    Criminal Breach of Trust


    Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property ,or with any dominion over property,
    dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes
    of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
    discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied. Which he has made touching the discharged
    of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “Criminal breach of trust.”

    Section 405 involves the following ingredients:


    (1) Entrusting a person with a property or dominion over that property; and
    (2) The person entrusted
    (a) dishonestly misappropriates the property or converts it to his own use; or
    (b) dishonestly uses or disposes of the property or willfully suffers another person to do so by
    violating –
    (i) any law regulating the discharging of that trust; or

    (ii) any legal contract regulating the discharging of that trust.

    Illustration

    Criminal Breach of Trust (A)


    A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to
    divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal
    breach of trust.

    Criminal Breach of Trust (B)


    A is a warehouse-keeper .Z, going on a journey ,entrusts his furniture to A,under a contract that it
    shall be returned on a payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse-room .A dishonestly sells the
    goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

    Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust

    According to Section 406, the punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or
    both. In order to prosecute the offender, the complainant has the burden to prove his guilt.

    According to Section 407, whoever ,being entrusted with property as a carrier or warehouse-
    keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property shall be punished with
    imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years with fine.

    According to Section 408, If the persons like office clerks and employee criminally breach that
    trust, their punishment also includes imprisonment up to 7 years with fine.

    According to Section 409, Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
    dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker,
    merchant, factor, broker, attorney, or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
    property shall be punished with transportation for life, or with imprisonment of either description for
    a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine.

    Precedents

    DAW THAN WIN v. THE UNION OF MYANMAR


    The little brother is given a couple of inheritor-claimed cows to plough the field, and agrees to
    give her sister 100 baskets of rice .When he sells a cow, it is right to charge him according to Section
    406 for his apparent self-interest against the agreement of all his brother and sister.

    U CHIT KYAW v. THE UNION OF SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF BURMA (U TIN MYAING)


    In the nature of partnership , it is naturally impossible trust of partnership property that one
    partner trusts another partner .Therefore, one partner cannot sue another partner for the criminal
    breach of trust. When the property trusted according to the specific agreement is misused, it happens
    to commit the criminal breach of trust.

    MAUNG THAN THAN INCLUDING TWO v. THE UNION OF MYANMAR


    The person in charge of the shop who cannot return the property worth over ks.10000/ it is an
    unjust loss for the government ; and to abuse underhandedly. Therefore , it is a penal offence.

    Cheating
    Cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC (India Penal Code), as follows-
    whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
    deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
    intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not to do or
    omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or
    harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat.”

    Illustration

    (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceived Z, and thus
    dishonestly induces Z to let him on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay A cheats
    (b) A, by putting a counterfeit on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article
    was made by a certain celebrated manufacture , and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and
    pay for the article. A cheats.

    Punishment for Cheating

    According to Section 417, whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either
    description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

    According to Section 418, whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
    wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates he was bound
    either by law or by legal contract to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
    description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

    According to Section 419, whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of
    either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
    According to Section 420,whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any
    property to any person, or to make , alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
    anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security,
    shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
    years, and shall be liable to fine.

    Precedents

    DAW THAN TIN v. DAW MANGE


    PENAL CODE , S.420- ordering further inquiry under S. 436 Cr .P. C. to be used sparingly with
    great circumspection – further inquiry in case perverse or illegal decision.

    HELD: The powers vested District Magistrate ordering further inquiry under S. 437 should be used
    sparingly and with great circumspection. The jurisdiction exercised in revision is an extraordinary
    jurisdiction and is to be used only in exceptional cases where the circumstances clearly warrant such
    a course.
    Held further: The Additional District Magistrate has clearly gone wrong in directing further inquiry
    in the case decided by the lower Court which was not in the least perverse or illegal. The Union of
    Burma v. U Po Chein , (1963) B.L.R.iii, referred to.

    THE UNION OF MYANMAR v. KO MYA THAN


    It is commit section 417 for the denial of living as husband and wife because of not marrying in
    accordance with the Muslim transition after signing the marriage certificate with the dual consent.

    Distinguish Between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating


    In Cheating wrong-doer induces the owner of the property to deliver it or any person to do or to
    omit an act while in trust, the owner of the property entrusts the property to the wrongdoer having
    “trust” and belief in him.

    In the case of cheating, the dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction, but
    in the case of criminal breach of trust, the person who comes into possession of but retains it or
    converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract.

    Cheating can be played against immovable property only, while criminal breach of trust can be
    played against movable or immovable property.

    Conclusion

    The major fact is the dishonest misuse of the property entrusted. The essence of cheating is to harm
    body, mind, dignity , or property, and to leave facts dishonestly through misleading. As to cheating
    and criminal breach of trust , it is principal whether the criminal commits dishonestly or not.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------

    You might also like