In Marcel Martins v. M. Printer, 2012 (93) ALR 228, it was held as under:
“It is manifest that while the expression “fiduciary capacity” may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its impact for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other.
In determining whether a relationship is based on trust and confidence, relevant to determining whether they stand in a fiduciary capacity, the Court shall have to take into consideration the factual context in which the question arises for it is only in the factual backdrop that the existence or otherwise of a fiduciary relationship can be deduced in a given case.” Mahipal Singh Rawat v. State of U.P., 2018 (127) ALR 479. Good
The term “Institution” had been considered by House of Lords in Mayor and C. of Manchester v. Mc-Adam (Surveyor of Taxes), 1896 AC 500. A distinction was sought to be drawn up between the “Institution” and the “Property of the Institution”. It was observed as under:
“It is a word employed to express several different ideas. It is sometimes used in a sense in which the “institution” cannot be said to consist of any persons, or body of persons, who could, strictly speaking, own property. The essential idea conveyed by it in connection with such adjectives as “literary” and “scientific” is often no more than a system, scheme or arrangement, by which literature or science is promoted without reference to the persons with whom the management may rest, or in whom the property appropriated for these purposes may be vested, save in so far as these may be regarded as a part of such system, scheme or arrangement. That is certainly a well recognized meaning of the word.
In Imperial Dictionary it is defined as follows:
“A system, plan or society, established either by law, or by the authority of individuals, for promoting any object, public or social. An illustration of this use is to be found in the Libraries Act itself. When the libraries which the authorities referred to in that Act may provide are termed “Institution” the term conveys the idea of buildings stored with books, with access to them by the public for the purpose of reading, together with the arrangements made for their use.
In Kamaraju Venkta Krishna Rao v. Sub-Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563, it was observed:
“According to the dictionary meaning, the term “Institution” means “a body or organization of an association brought into being for the purpose of achieving some object.” Oxford dictionary defines an “Institution” as “an establishment, organization or association, instituted for the promotion of some object especially one of public or general utility, religious, charitable, educational etc.” Church of North India Trust Association v. Union of India, 2017 (135) RD 36.
It has been held in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State, (2008) 2 SCC 561, that in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.
It has been held in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 889, that :
“to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal breach of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on his failure to account for the property entrusted to him, but where he is unable to account or renders an explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may readily be made.” Ghanshyam v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 82.