Back
2006(9) Supreme 610
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Mustafikhan - Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1261 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2639 of 2006)
Decided on 4-12-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocate.
Held : In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the accused, a public servant was entrusted with property of which he has duty bound to account for, (b) the accused had misappropriated the property. (Para 9)
Where the entrustment is admitted by the accused, it is for him to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been carried out as accepted and the obligation has been discharged.(Para 10)
It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove as to in what precise manner the accused had dealt with or appropriated the goods. In a case of criminal breach of trust, the failure to account for the money, proved to have been received by the accused or giving a false account of its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. Although onus lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, yet where the entrustment is proved or admitted it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the actual mode and manner of misappropriation and in such a case the prosecution would have to rely largely on the truth or falsity of the explanation given by the accused. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the entrustment.(Para 12)
It was the duty of the appellant to make payment. He cannot escape from liability by saying that he had entrusted the job to someone else. It was found by the trial Court and the High Court with reference to the evidence on record that payments were shown to have been made to persons who were found to be fictitious.(Para 13)
Looked at from any angle in view of the clinching evidence tendered by the prosecution which has been analysed at great length by the trial Court and the High Court, we find no scope for interference.(Para 15)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. By the impugned judgment the High Court while setting aside the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 468, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the PC Act) maintained the conviction for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The trial court had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 477-A IPC, Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act. Different custodial sentences were imposed along with fine.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant was working as Junior Engineer and was in-charge of execution of construction of tanks at Kudwa, Dhakni and Mundipar in Gondia Sub Division. This work was to be executed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The appellant was assisted by four muster clerks to keep a track of persons employed for the work of construction of these tanks. Between 7.1.1976 and l1.3.1976, same set of 21 labourers were shown to have been engaged at one and the same time for construction of the irrigation tanks at Kudwa, Dhakni and Mundipar. Payments were shown to have been made by the appellant, but in reality no such payments were made. Bogus names were shown. The investigation revealed that in all a sum of Rs.6,764.10 was misappropriated by the appellant abusing his position as supervisor. Accused No.2 was a labourer engaged and he was made to put his thumb marks on the muster rolls to show receipt of monies by fictitious persons, who were shown to have been engaged for the works. After the report, F.I.R. was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was sent up and trial was held in the Court of Special Judge at Gondia.
4. Upon consideration of material placed before him, the learned Special Judge charged both the accused of offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 468 read with Section 109 IPC and Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the PC Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Upon consideration of evidence tendered before him, learned Special Judge acquitted accused No.2 of all offences and also acquitted the present appellant of the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC. However, he convicted the appellant of the other offences and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. As noted above, the High Court held that prosecution had not been able to establish commission of offences other than Section 409 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction under that provision was maintained and custodial sentence of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation was maintained.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not established the commission of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The essential ingredients necessary to constitute that offence have not been proved.
7. It was submitted that the so called fake payment has not been established and reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Inderjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 289) to contend that the accusations have to fail.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
9. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the accused, a public servant was entrusted with property of which he has duty bound to account for, (b) the accused had misappropriated the property.
10. Where the entrustment is admitted by the accused, it is for him to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been carried out as accepted and the obligat
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
