JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This is a petition for quashing the proceedings in complainant Case No. C-122/85 pending in the 1st Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah. 2. The petitioner was an employee of Messrs National Testing and Engineering Corporation at 22A, Dum Dum Road, P. S. Chitpur, Calcutta. The opposite party No.2 is a partner of the firm. The firm, Messrs National Testing and Engineering Corporation, applied to the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, (B.A.R.C.) for short for supply of Isotopic camera and Isotope in connection with their business in Radiography and other allied things. The B.A.R.C. expressed their inability to supply the same. They agreed to give training to a suitable person to be appointed by the firm at the firm's expense so that the B.A.R.C. could supply the firm with the Isotopic camera and Isotope. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the firm on 1.6.1984. The terms of the agreement, inter alia, were that the petitioner would undertake training course at the B.A.R.C. at the expenses of the firm and would thereafter served the firm at least for five years. There were various terms in that agreement as to what would happen in case the petitioner left the service in the firm before the expiry of the minimum period of five years of if the service of the petitioner was terminated by the firm for unsatisfactory performance or if the service of the petitioner was terminated within a period of five years by the firm as a result of disciplinary action against him. These terms related to payment of liquidated damages and compensation. The father of the petitioner, Lakshman Chandra Kumar, was the surety in the agreement dated 1.6.1984. 3. A petition of complaint was filed by the firm and the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner under sections 406 and 408 I.P.C. alleging that after undertaking the training course at B.A.R.C. Trombay, at the expense of the firm to the turn of Rs. 10,000/- and obtained certificate from the B.A.R.C. on the basis of which the Isotopic camera and Isotope were to be supplied by the B.A.R.C., the petitioner failed to join the firm on various pretexts such as illness of his grandmother and his own illness and had caused loss to the firm to the turn of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 10,000/- and obtained certificate from the B.A.R.C. on the basis of which the Isotopic camera and Isotope were to be supplied by the B.A.R.C., the petitioner failed to join the firm on various pretexts such as illness of his grandmother and his own illness and had caused loss to the firm to the turn of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As the petitioner failed to join the firm inspite of letters being sent to him by the firm, the petitioner was directed by the firm to call at the office of the firm along with the original certificate and the relevant papers received from B.A.R.C. within a week by a letter dated 3.12.84. The petitioner thereafter failed to send the original certificate and the relevant papers received by him from the B.A.R.C. The opposite parties alleged that as tire employee of the firm, the petitioner was entrusted with receiving the papers and documents from the B.A.R.C. on behalf of the firm and that the petitioners was willingly withholding the same and thereby committed by a criminal breach of trust is not sending the papers as well as the certificate and is not joining the firm after completing of the training in the B.A.R.C. It was also alleged that in violation of the legal contract entered into between him and the firm, the petitioner was trying to utilise his training for his own illegal benefit by joining another firm of a like nature or starting a business a fresh of his own and thereby committed also criminal breach of trust. On alleging that the opposite party No.2 had been to the Officer-in-Charge, Chitpore P. S. to take cognizance of the matter and that the Officer-in-Charge, Chitpore P.S. had referred the opposite parties to court for appropriate direction, the opposite parties filed the petitioner of complaint under sections 406 and 408, I.P.C. 4. After filing the petition of complaint, initial depositions were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah. The learned Magistrate found a prima facie case under section 408, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed issue of summons against the petitioner under section 408, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the present revisional application has been filed before this court by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding. 5. Mr. The learned Magistrate found a prima facie case under section 408, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed issue of summons against the petitioner under section 408, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the present revisional application has been filed before this court by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding. 5. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has contended that on the basis of the allegations in the petition of complaint, there cannot be any commission of criminal breach of trust by the petitioner under section 408, Indian Penal Code I am to accept this contention of Mr. Ganguly. To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, it is essential that prosecution should prove first of all that an accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over any property. A perusal of the petition of complaint goes to show that property is the certificate obtained by the petitioner on completing his training on Industrial Radiology and safety aspects. Though there is mention in the petition of complaint about other documents/paper along with this certificate about completion of training course of the petitioner at the B.A.R.C., Trombay there is no mention in the petition of complaint as to what these other papers/documents are. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite parties, also states that the opposite parties as do not know if the petitioner has got any other paper/document besides the certificate about completion of his training course at B.A.R.C. Be that as it may, the certificate obtained by the petitioner on completing his training course at B.A.R.C. cannot be properly within the meaning of section 405, Indian Penal Code. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821 the question whether any offence defined in a particular section of the Penal Code can be committed in respect of any particular kind of property will depend not on the interpretation of the word "property" but on the fact whether that particular kind of property can be subject to the acts covered by that section in the Penal Code. Needless to say, the certificate obtained by the petitioner on completing his training course at B.A.R.C. cannot be subject to an offence of criminal breach of trust. The certificate was obtained by the petitioner by on dint of his own labour and volition. Needless to say, the certificate obtained by the petitioner on completing his training course at B.A.R.C. cannot be subject to an offence of criminal breach of trust. The certificate was obtained by the petitioner by on dint of his own labour and volition. The certificate was not entrusted to the petitioner by the opposite parties. The certificate cannot, therefore be "property" so as to bring some any offence of criminal breach of trust. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite parties, has argued that in the agreement dated 1.6.1984, it is stated specifically that the employer offered the employee to get technical training in the line of Industrial Radiography from B.A.R.C. of Trombay, Bombay. The contention is that this technical training is property. This contention cannot be accepted on a consideration of the elucidation of the word "property" by the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Dalmia (Supra). As the certificate obtained by the petitioner cannot be a property, there cannot be commission of any criminal breach of trust by the petitioner or any offence under section 408, Indian Penal Code. The proceedings in the court of the learned Magistrate are, accordingly, to be quashed. 6. Mr. Ganguly bas tried hard to convince that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and that no offence has been committed by the petitioner by not joining the firm. The contention of Mr. Roy, on the other hand, is that apart from mention of sections 406 and 408, I.P.C. in the petition of complaint filed by the opposite parties, there should have been mention of sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. and the father of the petitioner, who stood as surity in the agreement dated 1.6.1984, ought to have been joined as an accused in the case. Mr. Roy has prayed for permission from this court to add the father of the petitioner as an accused and to add also sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. in the petition of complaint. According to Mr. Roy, this can be done by this court in exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am unable to accept any of these contentions. According to Mr. Roy, this can be done by this court in exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am unable to accept any of these contentions. The dispute between the parties may not be merely a civil dispute as the petitioner, after agreeing to serve the firm for a period of five years after undergoing training at the expense of the firm, did not later on join the firm on one ground or another. In these circumstances, the dispute between the parties may not be entirely a civil dispute. There is, however, no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which this court can direct addition of sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. in the petition of complaint or joinder of the father of the petitioner also as an accused in the case. As already stated, the proceedings in the case before the learned Magistrate are to be quashed. In a proceeding which is to be quashed, there can be no joinder of other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of section 319, Cr.P.C. go to show that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. It was, thus, competent for the trial Court to add the father of the petitioner as also an accused in the case, provided in course of trial of the case, it appeared from the evidence that the father of the petitioner had also committed any offence. As the proceedings are going to be quashed, the trial Court cannot exercise any power under section 319, Cr.P.C. The Court cannot also pass any direction for adding the father of the petitioner also as an accused in the case, in the absence of any such provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. The result is that the proceedings are to be quashed. The revisional application is. accordingly, allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The proceedings in Case No. C-122 of 1985 under section 408, I.P.C. against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate are quashed. The result is that the proceedings are to be quashed. The revisional application is. accordingly, allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The proceedings in Case No. C-122 of 1985 under section 408, I.P.C. against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate are quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the bail bond if any filed in the court of the learned Magistrate. Let the lower Court records be sent down at once.