Supreme Court Restores Acquittal of Cashier Ramkrushna Dongardive Under Section 409 IPC

The Supreme Court on October 8, 2026, restored the acquittal of Ramkrushna Prahlad Dongardive, a former cashier-cum-counter clerk with the Telephone Department in Aurangabad, who had been convicted by the Bombay High Court for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of entrustment and dishonest intention, and that the seizure of documents from the appellant's residence was procedurally flawed.

Background of the Case

Dongardive was accused of collecting ₹8,73,737 in telephone charges between July and October 1993, of which ₹3,88,035 was allegedly credited belatedly and ₹4,75,702 was not credited at all. The trial court acquitted him in 2002, finding the evidence vague and the seizure of documents from his house not in compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bombay High Court reversed this acquittal in 2017, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Senior advocates B.H. Marlapalle and Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, appearing for Dongardive, argued that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal without considering the settled principles regarding appeals against acquittal. They contended that the prosecution had not proved entrustment of the alleged amount, nor any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant. They also highlighted that the trial court had drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to produce crucial documents, including the daily cash handover register and the stock register of receipt books, despite being ordered to do so.

For the State of Maharashtra, advocate Shrirang B. Varma supported the High Court's judgment, arguing that the documentary evidence, including receipt books and the opinion of the handwriting expert, clearly established the appellant's guilt.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court emphasized that for an offence under Section 409 IPC, the prosecution must prove both entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation. Citing R. Venkatakrishnan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009), the Court noted that breach of trust simpliciter is not an offence unless accompanied by dishonest intention.

The Court found that the prosecution had failed to produce the original cashbook, daily register, and other fundamental documents that would have established entrustment. The Investigating Officer himself admitted that despite his requests, the complainant department did not provide these records. The trial court had rightly drawn an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution for withholding these documents—a point the High Court had ignored.

Procedural Lapses in Seizure

A critical issue was the seizure of 46 articles from Dongardive's house. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the IO admitted that he did not obtain the appellant's signature on the seizure panchnama or furnish him a copy of the list, violating Section 100(4) and 100(7) of the CrPC. The High Court had relied solely on the IO's testimony to validate the seizure, but the Supreme Court rejected this approach. "The seizure could not be held to be duly proved solely on the basis of deposition of the IO without any further corroboration," the Court observed.

While noting that non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC does not automatically vitiate a seizure, the Court held that when considered cumulatively with other deficiencies in the prosecution case, it weighs in favour of the accused, especially in an appeal against acquittal.

Burden of Proof Cannot Be Shifted

The Supreme Court also faulted the High Court for shifting the burden onto the appellant. The High Court had observed that Dongardive ought to have produced the daily registers if he had credited the amounts. The Supreme Court reiterated the cardinal principle that the onus lies squarely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt . "It is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities ," the Court said, quoting Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa (1976).

Key Observations

"The seizure could not be held to be duly proved solely on the basis of deposition of the IO without any further corroboration. There is no explanation given by the IO as to why a list of the articles seized from the appellant's house was not furnished to him."

"Non-compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code by itself would not vitiate a seizure and the same would be an irregularity in the investigation. However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors that contribute to doubting the prosecution case, the same would weigh in favour of the appellant, especially in an appeal against acquittal ."

"The burden of proving a valid seizure of the articles was on the prosecution, but it failed to prove the same, in accordance with law."

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment dated October 12, 2017, and restored the trial court's acquittal of February 20, 2002. Dongardive was acquitted of the offence under Section 409 IPC, and his bail bonds were cancelled. The Court also noted, as a separate infirmity, that the High Court had sentenced the appellant without hearing him on quantum—a procedure required under Section 386(a) CrPC when an appellate court convicts for the first time. However, since the acquittal was restored on merits, this point did not require further action.

The ruling reinforces the importance of strict proof of entrustment and dishonest intention in criminal breach of trust cases and underscores that procedural lapses in seizure can significantly undermine the prosecution's case, particularly when other evidence is lacking.