Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of criminal breach of trust
Section 408: Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
Criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant of property entrusted to them in that capacity is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to seven years, and a fine.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 408
-
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Whether the bail granted to the appellant-accused on the basis of his undertaking to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- was rightly cancelled by the High Court on his failure to deposit the same.
-
Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of
Whether the offence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be treated as a scheduled offence even if the criminal conspiracy alleged is to commit an…
- Chanchalpati Das v. The State of West Bengal &
- Wyeth Limited & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- Mallada K Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
- M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr.
- Neena Aneja & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Santosh S/O Dwarkadas Fafat v. The State of Maharashtra
- J. Ramesh Kamath & Ors. v. Mohana Kurup & Ors.
- Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors.
- Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy and Others
- Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan
- Usha Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Ors.
- State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri Etc.
- Harichand v. Director of School Education
- V.M. Shah v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Smt. Harbans Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.