IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G Basavaraja, J.
M. Balaji, S/O. Muniyappa - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Sub Inspector Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.521 of 2018
Decided On : 02-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations against the accused. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments of both parties. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. judicial considerations. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. prosecution's case elements. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. entrustment and evidence issues. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. witness testimonies and credibility. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. failure of prosecution evidence. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
G Basavaraja, J.
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24th March 2014, passed in CC No.79 of 2008 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mulbagal (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short “the appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2014 dated 6th February, 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Facts leading to this revision petition are that the Police Sub-Inspector, Mulbagal, submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Section 408 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is alleged by the prosecution that from 30th January, 1999 to 28th September, 2004, the accused was working as Branch Postmaster at Kothamangala Branch Post Office and during that period, the accused has dishonestly misappropriated the amount deposited by the customers. The same is as under:
“a) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.2-K.Narayanappa from 12.5.2003 to 20.9.2004 to his SB Account No. 193031.
b) Not remitted Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.2,250/- to the government which was deposited by CW.3- K.Suvarna from 27.1.2004 to 20.9.2004 to her RD A/c. No.241101.
c) Not remitted Rs.4,200/- to the government deposited by CW.4-Sarswathamma from 17.8.2002 to 21.7.2004 to her RD A/c.No.240742.
d) Not remitted Rs.1,600/- out of Rs.2,000/-deposited by CW.5-Venkatalakshmamma from 24.11.2003 to 23.9.2004 to her RD A/c.No.240425.
e) Not remitted Rs.6,000/- to the government deposited by CW.6-Vishalakshamma on26.2.2004 to her SB A/c. No.193602.
f) CW.7-R.Munireddy, Head Master, Govt Higher Primary School, Kothamangala had withdrawn Rs.600/- on 24.7.2003 and Rs.200/- on 29.10.2003 from SB A/c. No.191498, but the accused has drawn Rs.1,600/- and Rs.1,200/- respectively and has misappropriated excess amount of Rs.2,000/-.”
4. The accused, despite mentioning the deposits and withdrawal in the respective account Passbooks, has not remitted the amount to the Government and has drawn excess amount from the account of Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Kothamangala and has dishonestly misappropriated the amount and used for his own purpose, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 408 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . The accused appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail.
5. Upon hearing on framing of charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 408 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Thereafter, the charge was altered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused, having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution, in all, has examined, fifteen witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and marked 28 documents as Exhibits P1 to P28. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to und

AI
Prosecution must present cogent evidence to establish misappropriation under Section 409; failure to meet burden results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a public servant accused of criminal breach of trust to prove the entrustment and discharge of the obligation, as well as the l....
Public servants misappropriating funds and failing to remit them can be convicted under the PC Act and IPC. The absence of documentation does not exempt accountability for the misappropriation.
Public servants must not misuse their position; misappropriation established through evidence confirms legal accountability under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC 401 limited; no evidence re-appreciation unless miscarriage of justice. Conviction under IPC 409 for Property Clerk's misappropriation upheld on entrustment proof v....
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence for criminal misappropriation under Section 408 of IPC, emphasizing the importance of entrustment and the duty of an employee to work with devotion when f....
An error in the charge framed by the trial court under Section 212 of the CrPC will not be regarded as material unless it misleads the accused or occasions a failure of justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of misappropriation can be considered part of official duty, requiring prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.