The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the settled position of criminal jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by holding that BNS offences of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating cannot legally co-exist when arising from the same set of allegations.
Justice R.K. Pattanaik, while examining a criminal revision petition, clarified that the essential ingredients of Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of BNS are mutually destructive, and prosecuting an accused for both offences without judicial scrutiny amounts to non-application of mind.
Distinction Between Criminal Breach Of Trust And Cheating Under BNS
The Court emphasised that cheating under Section 318(4) BNS requires dishonest intention at the very inception, meaning the accused must have intended to deceive at the time of making the representation.
In contrast, criminal breach of trust under Section 316(5) BNS may arise subsequently, even when the original entrustment was lawful and bona fide.
Justice Pattanaik observed that instant mens rea is the dividing line between the two offences.
When allegations merely point towards misuse or misappropriation after entrustment, invoking cheating provisions becomes legally unsustainable.
Cryptic Cognizance Order Set Aside
The petition challenged an order dated 29 August 2025, whereby the trial court had mechanically taken cognizance for both offences.
The High Court found that the order lacked analysis of the chargesheet and did not determine which specific offence was prima facie made out.
The Court held that such a cryptic order reflects absence of judicial application of mind, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Reliance On Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court relied upon authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court which have consistently held that criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot stand together when based on identical facts.
The Apex Court has repeatedly clarified that overlapping prosecution in such cases results in abuse of the criminal process.
Applying these principles, the Orissa High Court concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained in law.
Direction To Reconsider Cognizance
Allowing the revision, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digapahandi, to reconsider the issue of cognizance afresh, strictly in accordance with law, after evaluating the materials on record and keeping in view the settled legal position governing BNS offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The ruling once again strengthens procedural discipline at the stage of cognizance and reiterates that mere registration of sections cannot substitute judicial reasoning.
Case Details
- Case Title: Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha
- Case Number: CRLREV No. 961 of 2025
- Court: Orissa High Court
- Bench: Justice R.K. Pattanaik
- Date of Order: 5 January 2026
Appearances:
- For Petitioner: Advocate S. N. Das
- For State: ASC B. Dash
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
