Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by Pravin s/o Vasantrao Khobragade against the judgment of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, which confirmed the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi, convicting the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000, with a default sentence of four months. The applicant was a Junior Clerk at the JMFC Court, Arvi, in 2004. The prosecution case was that the applicant accepted an amount of Rs.450 towards copying fees from a clerk of an advocate but did not deposit the same in the government account. P.W.1, the Registrar at District Court, Wardha, verified the record and lodged a report. P.W.2, Mangala, the Assistant Superintendent at JMFC Court, Arvi, testified that it was her duty to supervise staff and receive copying fees at the end of the day. She stated that the applicant had accepted the applications and fees, but the amount was not deposited. The trial court convicted the applicant, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the applicant's counsel argued that the cupboard was opened in the applicant's absence, there was no proof of receipt of Rs.450 from the clerk, and there was delay in lodging the FIR. The learned APP supported the conviction, citing the decision in Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan. The High Court examined the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 stated that he lodged the report based on documents and had no personal knowledge of the day-to-day work. P.W.2's evidence showed that the applicant had accepted the applications and fees, and the amount was not deposited. The court found that the prosecution had proved the entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. The court rejected the argument of delay in lodging the FIR, as the prosecution case was otherwise proved. The court also distinguished the case of Vasant Moghe v. State of Maharashtra cited by the applicant, as the facts were different. The High Court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant - Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Entrustment and Dishonest Misappropriation - The applicant, a Junior Clerk, accepted Rs.450 towards copying fees but failed to deposit it in the government account. The prosecution proved entrustment through evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.1, and the non-deposit of the amount. The court held that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC were satisfied, and the conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Law - Delay in Lodging FIR - Effect on Prosecution Case - The court considered the argument of delay in lodging the report but found that the delay was not fatal as the prosecution case was otherwise proved by credible evidence. (Para 2) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Applicability - The applicant argued that the cupboard was opened in his absence and there was no proof of receipt of money from the clerk. However, the court found that the evidence of P.W.2 established that the applicant had accepted the applications and fees, and the non-deposit was proved. Hence, benefit of doubt was not granted. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriation of Rs.450 copying fees is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 409 IPC.
Law Points
- Criminal breach of trust by public servant
- Section 409 IPC
- Entrustment of property
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Proof of receipt of money
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Benefit of doubt
