2026:HHC:5551 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.831 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …….Petitioner Versus P.C Sud … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr.Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banstu, Deputy Advocates Generals for respondent /State. For the Respondent: Mr.P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P in case No.14/2 of 2018 titled “State of H.P vs P.C.Sud” whereby respondent/accused came to be discharged of his having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, petitioner/State has preferred present petition. 2. Precisely the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned Deputy 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:5551 Advocate General that while passing impugned order, learned Court below failed to appreciate the material adduced on record by investigating agency along with report under Section 173 of Cr.PC in its right perspective. He states that material collected on record clearly reveals that land in question was purchased in the name of accused, that too with the money of Arya Samaj Siksha Samiti. He states that accused misused his position as Pradhan of the afore Samiti and purchased land in his name from money of the Samiti. He states that otherwise also, petitioner being non-agriculturist, could not have purchased property in the State, and as such proceedings under Section 118 of H.P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act have already been initiated against the accused, which are pending adjudication before the Competent Court of Law. He states that since respondent misappropriated the funds of society, which were entrusted to him being President, no illegality can be said to have been committed by investigating agency by registering case under Section 406 of IPC against him but learned trial Court conveniently ignored afore aspect of the matter and discharged him under Section 406 of IPC. 3. To the contrary, Mr.P.S.Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, representing the accused while supporting the impugned order vehemently argued that no case under Section 406 of IPC is made out against accused. 3. 2026:HHC:5551 While referring to Section 406 of IPC, Mr. Goverdhan learned Senior Counsel submits that at no point of time money was entrusted to the respondent, rather money straight away was paid by complainant Manish Kumar to the sellers in his capacity as Cashier of the Samiti. He states that Sale Deed itself suggests that land was purchased for construction of School. He states that since no property could have been purchased by Samiti in Himachal Pradesh in view of bar under Section 118 of H.P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, Samiti itself resolved to purchase the property in the name of accused, but for construction of school. He states that since money was straight away paid to the sellers by Cashier i.e. complainant, no offence under Section 406 IPC can be said to have been committed by the accused for the reason that there was no entrustment of property and dishonesty, if any, on his part. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material on record vis-a vis reasons assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. In the case at hand, complaint was made by one Rohit Sood son of Late Sh. Joginder Lal Sood R/O Kandaghat Bazaar to the effect that accused, who at the relevant time, was acting as a President of the Arya Samaj Siksha Samiti, Kandaghat, registered 4. 2026:HHC:5551 Society under H.P Societies Registration Act 2006 and thereafter purchased land for construction of school in his name from the money of the Samiti. Complainant further alleged that Manish Sood, who was Cashier, handed over two cheques of the accounts of Samiti in the name of seller Ganga Ram and thereafter land was registered in the name of accused. Complainant also alleged that another person namely Rajender Kashyap, who was as Administrator/Secretary of the Samiti, also misappropriated the funds of the Samiti, while purchasing land in his name. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police after conducting investigation presented challan under Section 173 of Cr.PC in the Competent Court of Law, alleging therein that the respondent/accused P.C. Sood and Sh. Rajender Kashyap, who is now no more, have committed offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that co-accused Rajender Kashyap has expired but prior to his death, he had executed Will thereby bequeathing property, which is subject matter of the instant case, in favour of the Samiti. 6. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that accused misappropriated the property/money of the Samiti, as such he is liable to be punished under Section 406 IPC. 5. 2026:HHC:5551 7. Before ascertaining correctness of afore allegations, it would be apt to take note of Section 405 of IPC, which reads as under :- 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 discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “ criminal breach of trust.” Section 406 IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust:- whoever, commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, respondent/accused was acting as a President of Arya Samaj Siksha Samiti, Kandaghat at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that Arya Samaj Siksha Samiti intended to purchase piece of land for construction of school, but since afore Samiti could not purchase the land in State of Himachal Pradesh on account of bar under Section 118 of H.P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, it resolved to purchase the property in the name of petitioner and Administrator. In furtherance to aforesaid resolution of Samiti, the then Cashier of Samiti straight away paid money to owner of the land, Ganga Ram, by way of cheque, 6. 2026:HHC:5551 however, it specifically came to be mentioned in Sale Deed that land in question shall be used for construction of school. 9. Mr. Anish Banstu, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State attempted to argue that once petitioner being Secretary of the Samiti was aware of the fact that Samiti cannot purchase land in its name for construction of Samiti, coupled with the fact that the petitioner also being a non-Himachali was debarred from purchasing property in State of Himachal Pradesh, there was otherwise no occasion for him or other members to pass resolution to the effect that the land would be purchased in the name of respondent. But having taken note of the fact that it especially came to be mentioned in Sale Deed that land in question would be used for construction of Arya Samaj School, this Court finds it difficult to conclude that land was purchased in the name of respondent dishonestly with a view to misappropriate the property/land of Samiti, purchased in his name, rather same was purchased in his name for the reason that Samiti otherwise could not have purchased property in the State of H.P on account of bar under Section 118 of the H.P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. 10. True it is, that proper course for Samiti to purchase land was to approach State of Himachal Pradesh for permission because 7. 2026:HHC:5551 Section 118 provides for permission under special circumstances to the non-agriculturist for purchase of land. 11. Leaving everything aside, having carefully perused Section 405 IPC, which specifically talks about dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent that at no point of time, money with which land in question was purchased was ever entrusted to the respondent/accused rather same was straight away paid to the seller. Similarly, land in question though was purchased in the name of respondent/accused but there was specific condition that same shall be used for construction of school, meaning thereby there was no dishonest intention of the petitioner to misappropriate the money or land purchased for construction of school. 12. Since, both the ingredients of Section 405 with regard to entrustment of the property as well as dishonest misappropriation of the same are missing in the case at hand, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Court below while passing impugned order. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, instant petition fails and is dismissed. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 03, 2026 ( (meera)