Key Points: - The court held that the petitioners cannot be considered public servants under Section 21 IPC for the purposes of charging under Section 409 IPC; reliance on Section 129-A to classify them as public servants is improper for Section 21 IPC purposes. (!) - The court ruled that Ex. P2 (the enquiry report by PW2) is not a substantive piece of evidence; it cannot alone establish guilt and relies on it as corroboration, with absence of accounts/other documentary evidence rendering the conviction unsustainable. (!) (!) - The trial and appellate Courts relied heavily on PW2 and Exs. P2, Dl, D2 without adequate substantive documentary accounts filed before the Court; absence of the society's accounts undermines the charge under Section 409 IPC. (!) (!) - Cognizance was taken after more than five years from the alleged offence, attracting limitation under Section 468 CrPC; trial/conviction found barred by limitation, leading to setting aside of conviction and sentence. (!) (!) - The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the conviction and sentence with modifications; bail bonds cancelled, and fines refunded. (!)

What is the status of the petitioners as "public servants" under Section 21 IPC for the offence under Section 409 IPC?

What are the evidentiary requirements and admissibility of PW2’s enquiry report (Ex. P2) and other documentary materials in proving misappropriation under Section 409 IPC?