Back
2024 Supreme(All) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Pradeep Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru. C.B.I. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2609 of 2022
Decided On : 16-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, Manish Bajpai
For the Respondent: Shiv P. Shukla
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presumption or procedural lapses are insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 409, 477-A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) - Embezzlement by postal employees - Conviction of appellants for embezzling Rs.31,92,772/- set aside due to lack of evidence proving actual embezzlement or criminal conspiracy - Trial court's approach flawed for not considering prosecution evidence adequately. (Paras 10, 39, 104)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Burden of proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presumption insufficient for conviction. (Paras 92, 104)
(C) Criminal Justice - Accused presumed innocent until proven guilty; prosecution must establish case without reliance on assumptions. (Paras 92, 104)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, postal employees, were accused of embezzling funds through falsified accounts and inadequate supervision. The trial court convicted them based on circumstantial evidence and procedural lapses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence of embezzlement or conspiracy, and the trial court's judgment was based on flawed reasoning.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants committed embezzlement and whether the prosecution established a criminal conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove actual embezzlement or conspiracy led to the acquittal of the appellants, emphasizing the principle that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Bajpai, the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2261 of 2022, Sri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2022 and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India.
2. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the same judgment and order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, C.B.I. Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.18 of 2007, which was instituted on the basis of F.I.R. bearing R.C. No.6 (A) of 2007 and, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
3. The facts relating to Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2022 & Criminal Appeal No.2261 of 2022 are that the Superintendent, Post Office, Fatehgarh Division, Farrukhabad had given a complaint dated 28.02.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow stating that Pradeep Kumar Verma (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2022 was posted as Postal Assistant, Amar Nath Agnihotri (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2261 of 2022) was posted as Assistant Postmaster and Alladin was posted as Postmaster in the Head Post Office, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad during the period August 2005 to January 2006. Pradeep Kumar Verma was assigned the duties of savings certificate discharge counter. He used to receive cash from the head post office and to make payments in respect of National Savings Certificate (NSC), Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) and Indira Vikas Patra (IVP) and after fulfilling all the formalities Amar Nath Agnihotri, Assistant Postmaster used to examine the documents and Alladin, Post Master used to verify the transactions regarding NSC, KVP and IVP. In the months of August 2005 to January 2006, Pradeep Kumar Verma embezzled Rs.31,92,772/-. Amar Nath Agnihotri and Alladin did not check the receipt book, discharge journals and monthly returns etc. properly, made false entries in records, committed forgery in the documents and embezzled Rs.31,92,772/-. The offence was committed in connivance with Amar Nath Agnihotri and Alladin. The Superintendent of the Post Office had made a request for initiating legal proceedings against Pradeep Kumar Verma, Amar Nath Agnihotri and Alladin.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an F.I.R. bearing RC No.06 (A) of 2007, under Sections 120-B, 409, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged in Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow, U.P. After investigation a charge-sheet dated 19.06.2007 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against Pradeep Kumar Verma and Amar Nath Agnihotri only and the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence on 08.06.2007 and they were tried in Criminal Case No.18 of 2007.
5. Both the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as follows:
(i) three years simple imprisonment and Rs.20,000/-fine for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 409, 477A I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for an additional period of four months in case of failure to pay fine;
(ii) ten years simple imprisonment and Rs.25,000/-fine for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for an additional period of one year in case of failure to pay fine;
(iii) five years simple imprisonment and Rs.20,000/-fine for the offence under Section 477-A I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for an additional period of one year in case of failure to pay fine;
(iv) five years simple imprisonment and Rs.20,000/-fine for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and simple imprisonment for an additional period of five months in case of failure to pay fine;
(v) five years simple imprisonment and Rs.20,000/-fine for the offence under Sections 13 (2) read wit
