Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
Asha Devi W/o Late Tuntun Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1222 of 2009, Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2011
Decided On : 01-08-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409 & 120 (B) [BNS, 2023 – Sections 316 (5) & 61 (2)] – Criminal Breach of Trust – petitioners are involved in a case of misappropriation of Rs. 25 lakhs of Railway – From the statement of witnesses, one fact is admitted that the boxes were brought to Jamalpur in a locked and sealed position and submitted to the cashier of Jamalpur sub-pay office, and no complaint with regard to any broken seal was made – Another admitted position is that the petitioner Tuntun Chaudhary (since deceased) had proceeded ahead to Patna by the same train and the third and the most important, the petitioner Anjay Kumar after submitting the locked and sealed cash boxes which was kept in the sub-pay office, did not turn thereafter to the said office – In view of such admitted facts, it is clear that the petitioners could not have saddled with the allegations of loss of the said amount, there being no iota of evidence brought by the prosecution in order to establish that the petitioners were in connivance with the main accused Subhojeet Dutta, the Senior Cashier – Prosecution has, thus, not able to prove the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, and it was only on suspicion that they have named, which could not be proved by the prosecution through the evidence – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 25 & 26)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evidence of cash remittance and misappropriation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of petitioners against conviction. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. state's opposition to petitioners' claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. legal implications of misappropriation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. final analysis of evidence and conclusion. (Para 21 , 24 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners through aforesaid applications prays for setting aside order dated 02.05.2009 passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 67/2005 and order dated 13.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 2nd Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 65/2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeals filed by the petitioners/convict against the judgment/order dated 08.06.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in G.R. Case No. 49/2000/G.R.P. arising out of Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2000, registered for the offences under Sections 409 /34 and 120B/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by which the learned court has been pleased to convict the petitioners under Sections 409 and 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for additional four months.
Facts
3. As per the prosecution story, Sri Mohan Kant Ghosal, Divisional Cashier, Eastern Railway, Maladah, filed a report alleging that on 08.07.2000, Rs. 46.85 lakhs were remitted to Jamalpur by railway staff including Tuntun Choudhary (since deceased) and Ajay Kumar (petitioners) . The money was stored in the Jamalpur Sub Pay Office and sealed. However, on 09.07.2000, Senior Cashier Subhojeet Dutta accessed the office and later falsely claimed Rs. 45 lakhs were missing. An inquiry revealed Rs. 25 lakhs were misappropriated by Dutta, who confessed in writing and promised to repay the amount in three installments. The informant further stated that cash and records mentioned by Dutta were verified and after verification a shortage of Rs. 25,17,651/- was found in the cash of Senior Cashier-I, Jamalapur, Sri Subhojeet Dutta.
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 16 witnesses namely- P.W. 1 (Md. Naimuddin), RPF constable, PW-2 Anil Kumar Mandal RPF Constable, PW-3 Maheshwar Singh, Inspector R.P.F. Jamalpur, PW-4 S.K. Sutradhar, Station Manager, PW-5 Md. Javed Majhar, D.A.O. Malda Division, PW-6 S.K. Majumdar, Accounts Officer, PW-7 Shyam Lal, Asst. Commandant, R.P.F., Jamalpur, PW-8 Gulam Rasul, R.P.F. Constable, PW-9 Ram Rekha Singh, Constable, PW- 10 Dilip Kumar Singh, Head Constable, R.P.F., PW-11 Pramod Kumar Ghosh, J.E. Engineer, Barharwa, PW-13 Adhir Kumar Tiggi, Head Constable at Jamalpur, R.P.F., PW-14 Sudama Ram, Constable R.P.F., PW-15 Jogindra Kumar Singh, Officer I/C Rly. P.S. Jamalpur and PW-16 is Manoj Kumar Ghosh, Chief Cashier E.Rly. H.Q. at Kolkata and the prosecution also exhibited document from Exhibit 1-9.
5. Following documents have been filed and proved by the prosecution:-
(a) Ext. 1- Signatures of Subhojit Dutta and the witnesses in whose presence he confessed his guilt.
(b) Ext. 2- Fax message by which Subhojit Dutta informed Malda Division that he received 25 lakhs on the remittance sent by S.R.D.C. by Farakka Express.
(c) Ext. 3- Booking register which shows that 08.07.2000, Tuntun Choudhary, Junior Cashier of that office was on duty to Jamalpur.
(d) Ext. 4- Writing and signature of M.K. Ghosal on receipt register.
(e) Ext. 5- Entries in cash book.
(f) Ext. 6 - The writing and signature of M.K. Ghosal and the informant of this case on the written report.
(g) Ext. 7- Copies of challan being in pen and signature of Sri Dillip Kumar,Senior Divisional Cashier Malda upon which there is signature of cashier Tuntun Choudha
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence proved insufficient for maintaining conviction.
The conviction for misappropriation under Sections 403 and 409 IPC was upheld, confirming that the accused breached trust as a public servant responsible for collecting and depositing substantial gov....
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
For convictions under corruption laws, prosecution must conclusively prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe alongside establishing a clear conspiracy. Inconsistencies in testimonies undermin....
The court confirmed the conviction for misappropriation and corruption, establishing that the accused alone managed funds, while her confessions were voluntary and credible.
The duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance to the accused and the requirement to seek an explanation from the accused regarding incriminating circumstances.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
