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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Jitendra Kumar, J.
Birendra Kumar, Son of Bindeshwari Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.1163 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP, Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate Mr. Amitesh Jha, Advocate

The prosecution must provide concrete evidence to prove allegations of criminal breach of trust; absence of critical documentation undermines a conviction under Section 409 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 409 - Criminal breach of trust by public servant - Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court - Petitioner accused of financial irregularities causing loss to bank; however, prosecution failed to produce critical evidence, leading to conviction based on conjecture and surmises. (Paras 6, 8, 40, 43)

(B) Sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC - Issue regarding lack of sanction to prosecute public servant considered - Court ruled that being a public servant does not automatically invoke protection under Section 197 if not removable by government sanction. (Paras 27, 49)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bank branch manager, was found guilty of misappropriating loans amounting to Rs. 96,97,000 due to serious financial irregularities during his tenure, leading to his sentencing. The case against him relied primarily on documentary evidence including an audit report. (Paras 2, 39)

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented did not convincingly prove any criminal misconduct; hence, the conviction was based on conjecture and lacked sufficient corroborating evidence. (Para 43)

Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and whether proper sanction under Section 197 was necessary for prosecution. (Paras 30, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that proper evidence, particularly regarding loan documents and ledgers, was not available to uphold the conviction; thus, the appellate judgment was set aside. (Para 43)

Result: Petition allowed; conviction set aside and petitioner acquitted. (Para 43)

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

Introduction

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2019, whereby learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum- Additional Munsif, Muzaffarpur (West), in Paroo P.S. Case No. 109 of 2009, corresponding to Trial No. 5405 of 2018, G.R. No. 1006 of 2009, whereby learned Trial Court had found the Petitioner guilty under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to pay the fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for three months.

Prosecution Case

2. The criminal proceeding was initiated on a letter written by Area Manager of North Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Police Station Paroo, Muzaffarpur against the petitioner herein who was Branch Manager of North Bihar Gramin Bank, Branch Sarmastpur.

3. The sum and substance of the allegation levelled by the Area Manager against the petitioner, Branch Manger is that as per audit report during his tenure from 2005 to 2008, the petitioner has committed serious financial irregularities for sanctioning loans causing loss of Rs.96,97,000/- to the State revenue, details of the loans as given are as follows: (i) KCC loans in 190 accounts; (ii) L.T.L. loans in 13 accounts; (iii) G.C.C. loans in 57 accounts and (iv) S.C.C. loans in 49 accounts. As per further allegation, no documents regarding the address and parentage of the debtors were taken as loan documents. It has been claimed by the Area Manager/informant that prima facie, the petitioner has misappropriated the loan amounts by showing loans sanctioned in favour of the fake persons.

Evidence of Both the parties

4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses who are as follows:

(i) P.W.1 Ravi Ranjan Kumar – who is a retired Bank Manager.

(ii) P.W.2 Bhupendra Kumar (informant) who is a Senior Manager.

(iii) P.W.3 Braj Mohan Prasad who is retired Assistant Manager.

(iv) P.W.4 - Md. Shamshad Khan, P.W.5 - Md Aslam, P.W.6 - Neeraj Kumar, P.W.7 - Mr. Rajesh Kumar, P.W.8 - Ram Jappu Pandey and P.W.9 - Sujeet Kumar who are Investigating Officers of the case.

(v) P.W.10 Narendra Nath – who is an Assistant Regional Manager, who had done the audit of the bank in question.

(vi) P.W.11 Ritesh Kumar who is a Manager in a DAD USB head office, Muzaffarpur.

5. The prosecution has also brought on record the following documents:

(i) Exhibit 1 - Signature of the P.W.2 on letter No.139 dated 08.07.2009.

(ii) Exhibit 2 - Original audit report for period 10.02.2009 to 14.02.2009.

(iii) Exhibit 2/1- Writing and signature of the P.W.10, the Auditor on the audit report for the period 10.02.2009 to 14.02.2009.

(iv) Exhibit 2/2- Signature and writing on the audit observation of P.W.10, the audit observation report for the period covering for the period 10.02.2009 to 14.02.2009.

(v) Exhibit 3-Original report of Audit Observer for audit conducted from 28.01.2008 to 31.01.2008.

(vi) Exhibit 4- The signature of the S.H.O., Paroo namely, Ram Kumar Singh on the formal F.I.R..

(vii) Exhibit 5- Charge-sheet No.47/14 dated 28.02.2017.

(viii) Exhibit 6- C.C. of Departmental Proceedings DAW/02/09-10/271 dt. 03.09.2009.

(ix) Exhibit 7- C.C. of Departmental Proceeding order HO/DAD/04/11-12/No.99 dated 29.04.2011.

(x) Exhibit 8- C.C. of administrative order HO/DAD/04/11-12/No.100 dated 29.04.2011.

(xi) Exhibit 9-C.C. of GCC loan Circular letter Credit/02/2006-07/21 dated 18.07.2006.

(xii) Exhibit 10-C.C. of SCC loan Circular Credit No. HO/Credit 29/2005-2006 dated 30.01.2006.

(xiii) Exhibit 10/1- C.C. of letter No. Credit/02/2006-07 for SCC dated 01.09.2006.

(xiv) Exhibit 11-C.C. of KCC loan Circular Letter No. Credit/02/2006-07 dated 01.09.2006.

(

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