The Supreme Court examined whether a trust itself can be prosecuted as an accused in a criminal case. In Madasa Masih-Ul-Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Karnataka & Ors., the Court considered the legal status of a trust and the criminal liability arising from acts allegedly committed by its trustees. The Court explained that a trust is not equivalent to a company or other juristic entity possessing an independent legal personality. A trust is essentially a legal arrangement under which trustees hold and manage property for beneficiaries. Consequently, rights and liabilities ordinarily attach to the trustees rather than to the trust as an abstract entity. The Court also considered conflicting precedents and reiterated the principle of stare decisis. Where decisions of Benches of equal strength conflict, the earlier decision continues to operate as binding precedent until the issue is settled by a larger Bench. The Court further observed that merely tracing funds through a trust does not automatically establish criminal liability against the trust itself. Liability must be connected to the individuals responsible for managing and controlling the relevant affairs.