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
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.
(
Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
Duli Chand Vs Delhi Administration
Janta Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.
State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana I. J. Namboodiri
Thankappan Nada & Ors. Vs. Gopala Krishnan
Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr.
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors.
Sanjaysinh R. Chavan Vs. D. G. Phalke
Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma
S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi)
N. Raghavendra vs. State of AP as
Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
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.
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 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....
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 a public servant can be held liable for criminal misconduct and breach of trust under relevant legal provisions, and the court has the discret....
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.
(1) Revisional court can interfere with findings of fact of lower court when they are perverse and not merely when another view is also possible.(2) Deciding an appeal without appreciating evidence i....
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.