HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Kavadiya Sureshkumar Bhogilal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.)
(1) The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the first Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1997, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 408, 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) whereby the learned Magistrate has order to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of making payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 408 of the IPC.
(2) Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, as under:-
(2.1) It is case of the prosecution that on 16.07.1987, inspite of the fact that no sale of wheat coupon to the extent of 120
For a conviction under Sections 408 and 114 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused's dishonest misappropriation and direct involvement in the alleged offence.
Partial deposit towards audit-found shortage by entrusted salesman does not admit guilt of criminal breach of trust; prosecution must prove dishonest misappropriation or personal use beyond doubt, es....
The prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of misappropriation, and failure to account for entrusted property can lead to an inference of misappropriation.
Criminal Law – Offence of Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or b banker, merchant or agent – Appeal against Acquittal – Whether Acquittal justified - Prosecution has also to prove that the ....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
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.
Insufficient evidence of dishonest intent or misappropriation negates criminal charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving criminal intent in such transactions.
The accused was convicted for misappropriating public funds by failing to account for money entrusted to her, establishing criminal breach of trust and corrupt practices under the relevant sections.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
Prosecution must prove entrustment of property for misappropriation; burden shifts to accused upon proof to explain non-accounting, reaffirming legal standards for public servants under corruption st....
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.