In R VS GRUBB (1915) 2 KB PAGE 683 AT PAGE 689, Lord Reading held thatwhere the Defendant has obtained or assumed the Control of the Property of another Person under circumstances whereby he becomes entrusted or whereby his receipt, becomes a receipt for or on account of another Person, and fraudulently converts it or the Proceeds, then he has committed an Offence. The words “being entrusted” should not be read as being limited to the moment of the Sending or Delivering of the Property by the Owner, but may cover any subsequent period during which a Person becomes entrusted with the Property…” Likewise, in the case of M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS M/S NEPC INDIA LTD., & ORS ON 20 JULY, 2006 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA; AND CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA (1996) (5) SCC 591, it was held that the Property in respect of which Criminal Breach of Trust can be committed must necessarily be the Property of some Person other than the Defendant or the Beneficial Interest in or Ownership of it, must be in another Person and the Defendant must hold such Property in trust for, and is accountable to, such other Person or for his benefit. If the Defendant was entitled to keep the Money and use it for his own purposes, then plainly there could be no Question of Entrustment. In the case of ANG TECK HWA VS PP (1987) SLR (R) 513 AT PAGE 27, it was held that it is not necessary that the Loss to the Owner should have been actually suffered at the exact time of Entrustment. See also HIRA LAL CHAUDHARY AND ORS VS STATE ON 7 MARCH 1956 AIR 1956 ALL 619. CORNISH, J. in the case of EMPEROR VS JOHN MCIVER, AIR (1936) Mad 353, referred to the definition of the word "entrusted" by Lord Haldane in LAKE VS SIMMONS (1927) AC 487, where His Lordship held that entrustment may have different implications in different contexts. The notion of a “trust” in the ordinary sense of that word is that, there is a Person, the Trustee or the Entrusted, in whom confidence is reposed by another, who commits Property to him and this again supposes that the confidence is freely given. It could cover the case of Property honestly obtained by the Person entrusted with it but subsequently dishonestly misappropriated by him in breach of his trust. See also the case of J. M. AKHANEY VS STATE OF BOMBAY [AIR 1956 SC 575], which clarified that this Term does not contemplate the Creation of a Trust with all the technicalities of the Law of Trust. It contemplates the Creation of a Relationship whereby the Owner of Property makes it over to Another Person to be retained by him until a certain contingency arises or to be disposed of by him on the happening of a certain event." Under our Laws, Public Servants, who are entrusted, have positions of Greater Responsibility more than the General Populace. This is because of the Special Status and the Trust, which a Public Servant enjoys in the Eyes of the Public, as a Representative of the Government or Government Owned Enterprises. The Entrustment to him need not be Express, as it could be Implied. See the Recent Cases of B. D. PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ON 20 APRIL (2017) R/CR.MA/19007/2014 ANDSUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V SK ROY AIR 1974 SC 794, (1974) CR.LJ 678 (SC), where it was held by the Supreme Court of India that, it is the Ostensible or Apparent Scope of a Public Servant’s Authority when receiving the Property, that has to be taken into consideration. The Public may not be aware of the Technical Limitations of his Powers under some Technical Limitations of some Internal Rules of the Department or Office concerned. It is the Use made by the Public Servant in his Actual Official Capacity, which determines whether there is Sufficient Nexus or Connection between the Acts complained of and the Official Capacity, so as to bring the Act within the Scope of the Section. 102