2026 Supreme(Bom) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Kanhaiyalal, s/o. Shrawan Damahe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through P.S.Saoner, district Nagpur – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No.130 of 2015
Decided On : 08-04-2026

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 via invoices/registers despite delays; no CrPC 197 sanction as not official duty.

Headnote:(A) IPC Sections 409, 466, 477 - Criminal breach of trust by public servant - Property Clerk received muddemal property and cash amounts from police stations, issued acknowledgments but failed to enter in property registers, misappropriated Rs.2,45,989/- permanently and Rs.46,929/- temporarily by personal use and delayed deposits - Blank pages, overwritings without signatures in registers, non-deposit in CrCD account - Offences proved by witness testimonies and documents including extracts, invoices, seizure memos - No sanction under CrPC Section 197 required as acts not in discharge of official duty or under colour thereof - Protection unavailable for dishonest misappropriation. (Paras 3,4,8,9,18-22,36-41,54-57)

(B) CrPC Section 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Limited supervisory power to examine correctness, legality, propriety of findings, sentence or order - No re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of views unless gross miscarriage of justice - Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts not to be interfered with absent perversity or illegality. (Paras 13-16,59-60)

Facts of the case:
Property Clerk during 2001-2005 tenure accepted muddemal including cash from attached police stations, gave carbon copy receipts but omitted register entries post certain serial numbers, left pages blank or overwritten without presiding officer signatures, utilized cash personally without prompt deposit to CrCD account leading to detection during 2005 inspection and muster work compliance - Crime registered post Superintendent report, chargesheet filed, convicted for 5 years RI each count with fines by Magistrate, upheld in appeal, revision challenged delay, lack of originals, panch support, signature proof, Magistrate verification negligence.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence including Superintendent, police personnel, judicial officer testimonies, property/CrCD register extracts, schedules of misappropriated/delayed amounts corroborated entrustment via signed invoices and non-entries - Criminal Manual procedures for property handling violated - Dishonest intention inferred from conduct - Ingredients of criminal breach of trust established.

Issues: Proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation despite delay, absent originals/panch support, unverified police registers; necessity of CrPC 197 sanction; scope of revisional interference with concurrent convictions.

Ratio Decidendi: Essential for Section 409 IPC - entrustment admitted/established shifts burden to accused; dishonest use inferred from non-deposit, blank registers, delayed entries - Revisional court upholds trial/appellate appreciation unless glaring injustice; acts beyond official duty negate sanction need.

Result: Revision dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Table of Content
1. property clerk misappropriated muddemal cash amounts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. prosecution evidence supports lower courts' convictions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. disputed entrustment; witnesses prove receipt. (Para 10 , 11)
4. revisional jurisdiction limited to legality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. blank registers evidence non-deposit of properties. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. police witnesses confirm muddemal delivery to clerk. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. criminal manual requires property register entries. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. section 409 punishes public servant's breach of trust. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
9. entrustment and dishonest intention proved. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
10. court staff must uphold judicial integrity. (Para 51 , 52)
11. no sanction under section 197 required. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
12. offences under 409, 466, 477 ipc proved. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this revision, the applicant has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.3.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in RCC No.3249/2008 which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 7.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.68/2014.

3. By the said judgment and order impugned, the applicant is convicted for offence under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

He is further convicted for offence under Section 466 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

He is further convicted for offence under Section 477 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

4. Brief facts for disposal of the revision are as under:

The applicant was working in District Court, Nagpur and posted in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner. He was assigned with duty as Property Clerk in the said court from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005. During his tenure as property clerk, he received valuable muddemal property and amounts in various crimes from various Police Stations. Though he has given acknowledgment of receipts of the same on carbon copy of invoice to the police, he has not taken entries of the same in the property registers. He has kept the said amounts with him and used for his own purpose. In some cases, he has taken entry in the property registers, but has kept amounts with him for certain period and belatedly deposited with fine Clerk in CrCD Account. Thus, he has misappropriated amount Rs.2,45,989/- and temporary misappropriation was of Rs.46,929/-.

It was further alleged that when he was serving as Property Clerk, he has not taken entries of properties in property registers and had kept pages blank after property No.24 of 2002 was entered. In general property registers also, there are entries of properties and some pages were kept blank. He has also not obtained signatures of the Presiding Officer and reasons are not mentioned for keeping pages blank. Signatures of the Presiding Officer were not taken for entries of cash amounts bearing property No.28 of 2005 to 44 2005. Similarly, entries were scored and the had not been signed by him and also had not obtained signatures of the Presiding Officer.

On the basis of report of the Superintendent of the said Court, the crime was registered against the present applicant and other co-accused.

5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has seized relevant documents, recorded relevant statements of witnesses, and after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document