Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of criminal breach of trust
Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, of property entrusted to them in that capacity is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for up to ten 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.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
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 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten 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.
Understanding this section
Section 409 punishes criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, in respect of property entrusted to them in that capacity. It is the gravest form of criminal breach of trust, punishable with life imprisonment, because of the special trust involved.
Ingredients
- The accused was a public servant, or a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent.
- He was entrusted with property, or dominion over it, in that capacity.
- He committed criminal breach of trust, as defined in section 405, in respect of that property.
Entrustment in that capacity
The entrustment must be connected to the official or business capacity. A public servant who receives government money for official purposes and misappropriates it falls here; money received in a private capacity does not.
Proof of misappropriation
Once entrustment is proved and the accused fails to account for the property, or gives a false explanation, the court may infer dishonest misappropriation. A mere failure to return or delay, honestly explained, is not enough.
Prosecution of public servants
Sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be needed where the act is connected with official duty. Corruption laws may also apply in parallel.
Key Supreme Court rulings
N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI 2021 INSC 876
The entrustment of public property and its dishonest misappropriation or use are a sine qua non for an offence under section 409; the ingredients of section 405 must first be satisfied.
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 768
Grounds of arrest alleging section 409 must disclose the ingredients of entrustment, the property entrusted and the manner of misappropriation; a bare mention of the section number is not enough.
Common mistakes
- Applying section 409 without proving entrustment in the official or business capacity.
Read with: Section 405 IPC, Section 406 IPC, Section 197 CrPC, Section 316 BNS
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 409
-
Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby it disposed of the writ petition without granting any substantive relief as prayed for by the petitioners-allottees in a Group Housing Project stalled for nearly two…
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Supply Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar
Whether the dispute between the respondents and the appellant arising out of the agreement incorporating the arbitration clause has become non-arbitrable in view of the initiation and pendency of the criminal cases;…
-
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent.
-
Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of CrPC or under Art.226/227 of the Constitution is justified in refusing to quash the FIR No.380/2005, u/ss.420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and the order dated…
-
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of…
-
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged.
-
P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a…
-
Tr. A. Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu
Matter pertains to the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant and his release on bail on deposit of enhanced amount of fine.
-
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision application and refused to the quash the order of the Trial Court rejecting the appellant’s discharge application in a case for offences under the Prevention of…
-
Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application of appellant praying for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss.409, 219 and 114 of IPC and also rejected the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
-
Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the conviction of the accused u/s.120B and 411 IPC, when the seized gold bars are not the same gold bars linked to the fraudulent transactions.
-
The Union of India Through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent without considering the rigours of s.45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- Rishi Muni Dubey v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
-
Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence…
- Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Arvind Dham v. Union of India & Ors
-
Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another
Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the discharge of the said duty which did not require the first respondent to take a prior…
-
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in…
- Suresh Chand Pathak v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Madhuri Jain Grover & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Standing Counsel (Criminal). & Anr
- Sanjay Bhandari v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Neelam India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. The Investigating Officer Police Station Lahori Gate & Anr
- Anil Kumar Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Enforcement Directorate
-
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
- Nitya Sharma v. The State(Nct of Delhi)
- Kkh Finvest Private Limited & Anr v. Jonas Haggard & Ors
- Uttam Tagaray v. Central Bureau of Investigation
-
K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana and Anr.
Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed…
- Mr. Amardeep Singh Bedi v. Union of India & Anr
- Sarika Chaudhary & Anr v. State
- Swati Maliwal v. State
-
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered…
- Dheeraj Wadhawan v. CBI
- Pankaj Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Ajindra Kumar Puri & Ors v. State & Anr
- M.P. Mehrotra & Ors v. State & Arn
- Gurupada Maji v. Enforcement Directorate
- Sudhir Kumar & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
-
Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. v. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.
Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of…
- Ashish Bhalla v. Vishvendra Singh
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
- Satbir Singh v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- Vijay Kumar Khurana v. Shubham Jain
- Balwan Singh v. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and Anr
- V Hansprakash v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Dr Neh Srivastava v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Ashok Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Shri Pradeep Koneru v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr
- Mukesh Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Suresh Kumar v. Government of National Capital Territory
- Ats Real Estate Builders Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Ats Infrastructure Limited & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Rkm Powergen Pvt Ltd v. CBI
- Satyanarayan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Ajay Ramesh Chandra Nawandar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Vls Finance Ltd v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Bibek Singh Mehta v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Awaneesh Chandra Jha v. State NCT of Delhi
- Yogesh Makkar v. The State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)
- Vinod Bansal v. M/S Intec Capital Ltd
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi v. State of NCT Delhi
- Dinesh Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi
- M A Suresh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Commissioner of Police Delhi Police & Ors v. Vijender Singh
- Commissioner of Police Delhi Police & Ors v. Krishan Kumar
- Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett Tiger…
- Shri Arun Gupta & Anr v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Somnath Prajapati v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Anurav Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Neeraj Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Ritu Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Delhi NCT & Anr
-
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA,…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending,…
-
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other…
- Shishir Chand v. The Central Information Commission & Anr
- Ca Subodh Maheshwari v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Anr
- Dr Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Ut Chandigarh
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Hassad Food Company Q S C & Ors
- Manu Prashant Wig v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Habibbur Rahman v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Bashir Hasan Siddiqui v. State (Gnctd)
-
Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Chhattisgarh
Conduct of the trial for offence under Section 409, Penal Code, 1860; exercise of powers under Cr.PC, for committal of cases to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
- Avtar Singh Kocchar @ Dolly v. The State of NCT of Delhi
- Trikkur Venkatachalam Radhakrishnan v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Kuldeep Singh v. CBI & Anr
- Rajinder Singh Chadha v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Through Its Chief Secretary & Anr
- Moloy Ghatak v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Parshant Jain v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Premco Rail Engineers Ltd & Ors v. State - Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Nayati Healthcare and Research Ncr Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.Through Its Authorized Representative Sh. Sati v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Through Its Standing Counsel & Anr