SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1248

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. M.R. Patil, Hcgp.

Prosecution must present cogent evidence to establish misappropriation under Section 409; failure to meet burden results in acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 409 - Prosecution for misappropriation by a public servant - Accused, as Branch Postmaster, allegedly misappropriated customer deposits over several years - Both trial and appellate courts upheld conviction, but evidence showed material inconsistencies and lack of corroborating testimony from key witnesses. (Paras 1, 6, 21)

(B) Requirements for proving breach of trust under Section 409 - The prosecution must establish that the accused was entrusted with property and committed a breach of trust. The accused's conviction overturned due to failure of prosecution to meet the burden of proof. (Paras 10, 22)

Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with misappropriating amounts deposited by customers while serving as a Branch Postmaster. Despite claims of misappropriation, evidence from key witnesses turned hostile or was missing, raising doubts about the trust breach.

Findings of Court:
Both trial and appellate courts erred in accepting the prosecution’s case given the lack of compelling evidence; the court found no cogent proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The central issues were whether the evidence provided met the burden of proof for the alleged offense and whether the accused was indeed guilty of the charges brought against him.

Ratio Decidendi: Due to the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to establish the accused’s guilt or prove the essential elements of Section 409, the court found in favor of the accused.

Result: Revision Petition allowed; the accused acquitted.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top