# ff SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL v. BIRENDRA CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY - **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 481 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-11-21 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1970 - **Bench:** Beg Andy. V. Chandrachud - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ff-superintendent-and-remembrancer-of-legal-affairs-west-bengal-v-birendra-6152 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote 481 Indian Penal Code s. 40l-Responden: was actln, as trust11 and attnt of tl11 complainant-Ile transferred certain proptrtles without knowledge of the rlDI owner-. Whether criminally liable in view of innumerable transactions between the parties. The respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, as trustee and agent of one Saila Bala Devi, for criminal breach of trust for selling 3 bighas of land to the trustees of one Ashoka Trust and for misappropriating the proffts thefeof, thereby, committing an offence under s. 401 of the I.P.C. On an appeal by the respondent; the High Court held that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature. It did not decide the question whether a criminal breach of trust could be committed in respect of immovable property entrusted to an agent for management on a certain understanding. The real dispute was whether the respondent, who was the ostensible owner of some immovable property, was the real owner or a benamidar holding on behalf of the real owner. The facts are that the complainant with her· family shifted to Calcutta from East Bengal after partition. The complainant and her family came under the influence of the respondent, who was very much trusted by the lady and her family. Under the advice of the respondent, the complainant transferred her house in East Bengal and paid Rs. 37,000/- to one A, but the properties to be giVen by A in'retum were actually iransferred to the Respondent as a Benamidar. When the respondent executed the deed of relinquishment, the disputed properties (Bansdroni properties) were dishonestly left out and not transferred. The respondent, was alleaed to have committed criminal breach of trust, in misappropriatina the income of the disputed properties. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) In view of the long and intimate relations between the respondent and the family of the complainant and the numerous transactions between them, it is difficult to decide whether the respondent is criminally liable. The respon4ent had claimed that he had actually bou.*1:ht the disputed properties himself for the use of his disciples and that there were now trust properties---the properties stood transferred in the name of Ashoka Trust when the F.l.R. was made,-dedicated for charitable purposes. (ii) It is difficult to decide whether the claim of the respondent is honest. It is not possible to fasten criminal liability, beyond reasonable doubt, upon the respon .. dent before the right and the title to the disputed properties is properly established by the complainant by means of a civil suit. Therefore, the civil nature of the dispute be first decided before any question of criminal liability by satisfactorily adjudicated upon. ## Text e c :0 E F G ff SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL V. BIRENDRA CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY November 21, 1973 [M. H, BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 481 Indian Penal Code s. 40l-Responden: was actln, as trust11 and attnt of tl11 complainant-Ile transferred certain proptrtles without knowledge of the rlDI owner-. Whether criminally liable in view of innumerable transactions between the parties. The respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, as trustee and agent of one Saila Bala Devi, for criminal breach of trust for selling 3 bighas of land to the trustees of one Ashoka Trust and for misappropriating the proffts thefeof, thereby, committing an offence under s. 401 of the I.P.C. On an appeal by the respondent; the High Court held that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature. It did not decide the question whether a criminal breach of trust could be committed in respect of immovable property entrusted to an agent for management on a certain understanding. The real dispute was whether the respondent, who was the ostensible owner of some immovable property, was the real owner or a benamidar holding on behalf of the real owner. The facts are that the complainant with her· family shifted to Calcutta from East Bengal after partition. The complainant and her family came under the influence of the respondent, who was very much trusted by the lady and her family. Under the advice of the respondent, the complainant transferred her house in East Bengal and paid Rs. 37,000/- to one A, but the properties to be giVen by A in'retum were actually iransferred to the Respondent as a Benamidar. When the respondent executed the deed of relinquishment, the disputed properties (Bansdroni properties) were dishonestly left out and not transferred. The respondent, was alleaed to have committed criminal breach of trust, in misappropriatina the income of the disputed properties. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) In view of the long and intimate relations between the respondent and the family of the complainant and the numerous transactions between them, it is difficult to decide whether the respondent is criminally liable. The respon4ent had claimed that he had actually bou.*1:ht the disputed properties himself for the use of his disciples and that there were now trust properties---the properties stood transferred in the name of Ashoka Trust when the F.l.R. was made,-dedicated for charitable purposes. (ii) It is difficult to decide whether the claim of the respondent is honest. It is not possible to fasten criminal liability, beyond reasonable doubt, upon the respon .. dent before the right and the title to the disputed properties is properly established by the complainant by means of a civil suit. Therefore, the civil nature of the dispute be first decided before any question of criminal liability by satisfactorily adjudicated upon. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order. dated the 11th September, 1969 of the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 160/65. D. N. Mukherjee, A. K. Guha, G. S. Chatterjee and P. K. Gupta, for the appellant. Hardayal Hardy, L. K. Das Gupta, B. R. G, K. Achar and Suku· ;mar. Ghosh, for the respondent. 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 2 S.C.R, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J.-The respondent, Birendra Chandra Chakravarty, was tried. by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and convicted and. sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months, on the following charge held to have been established against him: "That you the said Birendra Chandra Chakraborty, alias Balak Brahmachari on or about the 29th day of February, 1958, at Calcutta, as trustee and agent of one Shrimati Saila Bala Dasi, from or on 26-11-1949 committed criminal breach of trust as such trustee and· agent in respect of 3 Bighas of land out of about 5 Bighas of land situated in Village Bansdroni in the district of 24 Parganas by selling the said three bighas of land to (1) Birendra Lal Sarkar, (2) Birendra Nath Bose, and (3) Mahindra Lal Chakraborty, trustees of the Ashoke Trust, and misappropriated the profits thereof, and thereby you the said Birendra Chandra Chakraborty, alias Balak Brahmachari, committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance". On an appeal by the convict respondent, the High Court of Cal- ~utta by an exceptionally long judgment of more than a 100 pages, ·m the course of which a number of registered documents, their correct interpretation, and their effects were discussed, held that the dispute between the partie~ was essentially of a civil nature. It did not decide the question whether a criminal breach of trust could be committed in respect of immovable property entrusted to an agent for management on a certain understanding. The gravamen of the charge against the respondent was that he had, in violation of this understanding, set up his own title to one of the several properties, which should have been relinquished or transferred to the complainant Smt. Saila Bala Devi just as other properties, mentioned in the schedule to a registered deed of derelinquishment (Ex. 8) dated 24-2-62, were actually transferred or relinquished in favour of Smt. Saila Bala Devi after acknowledging her right and title to them, although their ostensible owner, like that of the property which was said to have been dishonestly retained and not relinquished, was the respondent himself. In other words, the real dispute was whether an ostensible owner of some immovable property was really its owner or merely a benamidar holding it on behalf of the real owner. The rather pathetic story of Smt. Saila Bala Devi was : She is the widow of Aswini Kumar Das, a retired Chief Engineer of Dacca Municipality, who died sometime in 1934, leaving her with seven daughters and four sons. The Engineer. whose monthly salary was Rs. 1,000/·, had left a two-storeyed house at Dacca, a Dispe11sary at Nawabpur, and 200 bighas of land in Gangarampur, in addition to a deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, a life insurance policy of Rs. 22,000/-, and provident fund of Rs. 25,000/-. Smt. Saila Bala ::>evi had also saved c D f G H. A B D F G H SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER V. B. C. CHAXRAV,ARTY (Beg, J.) 483 about Rs. 25,000/· and had goM ornaments. She and her family, however, came under the evil spell of the respondent, Birendra Chan· dra Chakravarty, alias Balak Brahmachari, sometime about 1944. She was so impressed by the young Brahmachari, aged about 23 years, that she looked upon him as an avatar or incarnation of ·God. She and her family as well as the Brahmachari (also called "Gurudev" by them) shifted to Calcutta after the partition of the country. Under the advice of the respondent, Smt. Saila Bala Devi transferred her house in East Bengal and paid Rs. 37,000/· to one Abdul Rahman, introduced to her by the respondent, but the properties to be given by Abdul Rahman in return for this consideration were actually trans· ferred to the respondent as a benamidar (the re2.son for this is not clear). When the respondent executed the deed of relinquishment (Ex. 8) dated 24-2-62, she remained under the impression that her right to all the properties of which the respondnet was benamidar was being recognised, but what may be called "Banasdroni properties" (which stood in the name of Ashoke Trust at the time of the First Information Report, dated 26-11-63) were dishonestly left out and not relinquished. She made demands upon the respondent to make the relinquishment or transfer after she discovered, through one of her sons, the fraud perpetrated upon her. The respondent had terrorized her by threats of letting loose goondas upon her. The police wu also under the influence of the respondent who had, by 'wrongly not relinquishing or transferring Bansdroni properties to her. and miaappro· priating their income, committed a criminal breach of truet. The F.I.R. dated 26-11-63 was, initially, a letter sent to Shri Profulla·Chan· dra Sen, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, which was forWllrd