Bombay High Court
Kanhaiyalal S/O Shrawan Damahe vs State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S. … on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5535
Judgment
revn130.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2015
Kanhaiyalal s/o Shrawan Damahe,
age: 56 years, occupation: service, r/o
Ramtek, district Nagpur (presently
in Central Jail, Nagpur). ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
State of Maharashtra, through
P.S.Saoner, district Nagpur. ..... Non-applicant.
================================
Shri Amol Mardikar, Counsel for the Applicant.
Mrs.M.A.Barabde, APP for the for the Non-applicant/State.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13/03/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 08/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. By this revision, the applicant has challenged judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.3.2014 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in
RCC No.3249/2008 which is confirmed by judgment and
…..2/-
Judgment
revn130.15
2
order dated 7.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-7, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.68/2014.
3. By the said judgment and order impugned, the
applicant is convicted for offence under Section 409 of the
IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 1 month.
He is further convicted for offence under Section 466
of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
5 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.
He is further convicted for offence under Section 477
of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
5 years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.
4. Brief facts for disposal of the revision are as under:
…..3/-
Judgment
revn130.15
3
The applicant was working in District Court, Nagpur
and posted in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division,
Saoner. He was assigned with duty as Property Clerk in the
said court from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005. During his tenure as
property clerk, he received valuable muddemal property and
amounts in various crimes from various Police Stations.
Though he has given acknowledgment of receipts of the same
on carbon copy of invoice to the police, he has not taken
entries of the same in the property registers. He has kept the
said amounts with him and used for his own purpose. In
some cases, he has taken entry in the property registers, but
has kept amounts with him for certain period and belatedly
deposited with fine Clerk in CrCD Account. Thus, he has
misappropriated amount Rs.2,45,989/- and temporary
misappropriation was of Rs.46,929/-.
It was further alleged that when he was serving as
Property Clerk, he has not taken entries of properties in
property registers and had kept pages blank after property
…..4/-
Judgment
revn130.15
4
No.24 of 2002 was entered. In general property registers
also, there are entries of properties and some pages were kept
blank. He has also not obtained signatures of the Presiding
Officer and reasons are not mentioned for keeping pages
blank. Signatures of the Presiding Officer were not taken for
entries of cash amounts bearing property No.28 of 2005 to 44
2005. Similarly, entries were scored and the had not been
signed by him and also had not obtained signatures of the
Presiding Officer.
On the basis of report of the Superintendent of the
said Court, the crime was registered against the present
applicant and other co-accused.
5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has
seized relevant documents, recorded relevant statements of
witnesses, and after completion of the investigation,
submitted chargesheet against the present applicant in the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
…..5/-
Judgment
revn130.15
5
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge
vide Exh.68.
6. In support of the charge, the prosecution placed
reliance on 14 witnesses, they are as follows:
PW Names of Witnesses Exh.
Nos. Nos.
1 Aparna Joshi, informant 80
2 Laxman Nimje, pancha on seizure 110
panchanama
3 Suryabhan Gaikwad, pancha 145
4 Shrikant Kolte, Senior Clerk 163
5 Sharad Dupare, pancha 165
6 Sheshrao Babhurde, pancha 187
7 Rajendrasing Thakur, Property Clerk 234
8 Neha Rawanhate 283
9 Manohar Welekar 299
10 Ravi Bhagwat 301
11 Waman Rewatkar 299
12 Ramesh Wadbudhe, Police Head Constable 516
13 Shammi Israil Sheikh 555
14 Vasant Rewatkar 570
.....6/-
Judgment
revn130.15
6
7. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed
reliance on reports Exhs.81, 86, 87, and 88, FIRs Exhs.82 and
91, extract of property register Exh.677, extract of delayed
deposits of amount of deposits of Saoner Police Station
Exh.678, duty chart Exh.679, property extract as to property
regarding Khapa Police Station, delay in depositing property
amount extract regarding Khapa Police Station Exh.681,
extract of property register of Kalmeshwar Police Station
Exh.682, delay in depositing the property in the matter of
Kalmeshwar Police Station, extract of property register of
Kelwad Police Station Exh.684, extract of delay in depositing
property amount in criminal court as to Kelwad Police Station
Exh.685, extract of property register of Khaperkheda Police
Station Exh.686, delay in depositing the property amounts in
criminal court of Khaperkheda Police Station Exh.687, seizure
memo Exh.688, seizure panchanama Exh.111, and seizure
memo Exh.517.
…..7/-
Judgment
revn130.15
7
8. On the basis of the said oral as well as the
documentary evidence, the trial court came to conclusion that
there is a sufficient evidence against the present applicant and
the offence against him is proved. It is further held that
sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is not required as
offences are not committed in discharge of official duty. It is
specifically held that the present applicant has committed the
offences which are not part of his official duty and, therefore,
protection is not available to him.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
present applicant has preferred an appeal. The said appeal
also came to be dismissed by observing that defence of the
present applicant rests on only fact that registers of the
concerned police station were not verified. Similarly, the
properties were not received by him. However, testimony of
witnesses clearly demonstrated that amount Rs.2,45,989/-
was entrusted with the present applicant and he failed to
deposit the same. The evidence of witnesses further discloses
…..8/-
Judgment
revn130.15
8
that amount Rs.46,929/- was cumulatively accepted by him in
various crimes and was deposited belatedly. In the meantime,
he has used the said amount for his personal use. Thus,
entries taken by the present applicant sufficiently show that
he has received the amount, but he has not deposited the
same in CrCD Account and thereby he has committed an
offence of “criminal breach of trust” of Rs.2,45,989/- and
temporary misappropriation was of Rs.46,929/- and thereby
confirmed the conviction.
Hence, the present criminal revision application is
filed.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as
per the prosecution case, the alleged incident of
misappropriation was in the year 2002. Whereas, the FIR
came to be lodged in the year 2005. The entire prosecution
evidence rested upon invoices and original invoices are not
brought on record.
…..9/-
Judgment
revn130.15
9
As far as seizure of documents are concerned, none of
pancha witnesses has supported the prosecution case and,
therefore, seizure of documents is not proved. In view of
provisions of Criminal Manual, it was the Magistrate who has
to verify entries, which are not verified by the Magistrate and,
therefore, there is a negligence in verification of property
registers by the Magistrate also. As original invoices are not
on record, aspect of “criminal breach of trust” itself is not
established.
He submitted that the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence that PW1
Aparna Joshi could not establish that it was the present
applicant who was assigned with the duty and it was he who
has taken entries or accepted amounts. In absence of proof of
signatures on invoices of present applicant, learned Judge of
the trial court has wrongly convicted the present applicant. In
view of that, the revision deserves to be allowed.
…..10/-
Judgment
revn130.15
10
11. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposed
the said contentions and submitted that in order to
substantiate the contentions, the prosecution has examined 14
witnesses. The material witness is Aparna Joshi, who was, at
the relevant time, serving as Superintendent. Her evidence
shows that Khaperkheda, Kalmeshwar, Kelwad, and Khapa
Police Stations were attached to the joint court. The
inspection of the joint court at Saoner was carried out in June
2005. The directions were given to complete moster work
with immediate effect. For the said moster work, eight
employees were deputed by the order of learned Principal
District Judge. While completing the moster work, it was
further directed to dispose of property No.41, 41, and
42/2002. These numbers were noted on invoices attached
with the file. However, the said numbers were missing in
register Exh.30 and, therefore, she called invoice register
from the Saoner Police Station and found that in so many
matters, the then Property Clerk, i.e. the present applicant,
…..11/-
Judgment
revn130.15
11
though gave receipts to the concerned police, those properties
were not mentioned in the property register and, therefore,
she obtained photocopies of those invoices from police station
and submitted report to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding
Officer has directed to take a search of these cases and on
searching of 7-8 cases, she found that entries of muddemal
were not taken in the muddemal register. Therefore,
verification of the account register was also done and it was
noticed that entries of cash muddemal were not taken in the
concerned register in respect of amount approximately
Rs.13,000/-. The said fact was also brought to the notice of
the Presiding Officer, who verified the said fact and submitted
report to learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nagpur on 7.9.2007. Learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Nagpur directed Superintendent Shri Sheikh to verify
the said fact. Thereafter, the Superintendent prepared list of
invoices in respect of Saoner Police Station. Other invoices of
other police stations are also verified and it revealed that the
…..12/-
Judgment
revn130.15
12
present applicant has accepted amounts in various crimes, but
has not deposited the same though he has taken entries in
CrCD Register and some properties were deposited by him
belatedly. This fact is further corroborated by the property
registers Exhs.302, 303, 304, and 305. She has also prepared
Schedule-I Exh.677 in respect of misappropriated amounts
pertaining to Saoner Police Station, Khapa Police Station
Exh.681, Kelmeshwar Police Station Exh.684, Kelwad Police
Station Exh.686, and Khaperkheda Police Station Exh.687.
She submitted that the evidence further shows that Senior
Clerk PW4 Shrikant Kolte, working in court, also corroborates
the evidence of PW1 Aparna Joshi, PW7 Rajendrasing Thakur
attached to the Saoner Police Station, PW11 Waman Rewatkar
attached to the Saoner Police Station, PW12 Ramesh
Wadbudhe deputed as Moharir with Kelwad Police Station,
and PW13 Shammi Israil Sheikh representative of various
police stations, who also deposed that they deposited the
property and invoices were issued to them.
…..13/-
Judgment
revn130.15
13
Thus, she submitted that after scrutiny of evidence of
witnesses, it revealed that the present applicant was Property
Clerk for the period of 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005. The procedure
for depositing the property, as per Criminal Manaual, that he
has to deposit the same by taking entry in CrCD Register. The
present applicant has not denied that he was serving as
Property Clerk of the relevant period.
The evidence further shows that some pages of relevant
registers were kept blank.
Thus, the present applicant has not performed his duty.
The intention of the present applicant is apparent and,
therefore, he has committed offences under Sections 409, 466,
and 477 of the IPC.
12. The present applicant has challenged concurrent
findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
by preferring this revision.
…..14/-
Judgment
revn130.15
14
13. As far as scope of revision is concerned, it is well
settled that while exercising revisional powers, cardinal
principles to be kept in mind is that scope of revision is very
limited. Only to see as to correctness, legality, and propriety
of any finding and sentence of an order. This Court or the
Sessions Court is empowered to call for and examine the
record of any proceeding pending before any inferior criminal
court situates within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose
of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding and sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such
inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct
that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and
if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or
on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
14. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh
and anr vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), reported in
(2002)6 SCC 650, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
…..15/-
Judgment
revn130.15
15
“….. The High Court was not justified in re-
appreciating the evidence on record and coming to
a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the
informant under Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401
in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall
be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The
aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on
the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it
from converting a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and
extent of the revisional power conferred by Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High
Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into
one of conviction directly, it could not do so
indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is
well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court
that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in
revision with an order of acquittal except in
exceptional cases where the interest of public
justice requires interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of gross
miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be…..16/-
Judgment
revn130.15
16
justified in interfering with an order of acquittal
merely because the trial court has taken a wrong
view of the law or has erred in appreciation of
evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to
make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which
exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified,
but decisions of this Court have laid down the
parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by
the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal
by a private party.”
15. In another decision, in the case of Ashish Chadha vs.
Smt.Asha Kumari and anr, reported in (2012)1 SCC 680, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, the High Court has in its
revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could
not have done. It is the trial court which has to decide
whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima
facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against
him. Pertinently, even the trial court cannot conduct roving
and fishing inquiry into the evidence. It has only to consider
…..17/-
Judgment
revn130.15
17
whether evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima
facie case against the accused or not.”
16. Thus, in its revisional jurisdiction, this court can call for
and examine record of any proceeding for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, and propriety of
any finding or sentence or order. In other words, the
jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice, but the said
revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an
Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a Second
Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for this court to re-appreciate the evidence and
come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence
has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as
Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought
to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
…..18/-
Judgment
revn130.15
18
17. In the light of the above well settled principles, the
present revision application requires to be decided.
18. The evidence on record shows that the present
applicant was Property Clerk from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005. The
allegations against the present applicant are that during his
tenure as Property Clerk, he has accepted properties received
from the concerned police station and though he has given
acknowledgment, he has not taken entries to that effect in the
property register and has utilized the cash amounts for his
own benefit. He has utilized the cash amount of
Rs.2,45,989/- for his own use and also temporarily utilized
amount Rs.46,929/-, which was subsequently deposited.
To substantiate the said allegation, the prosecution has
examined the material witness PW1 Aparna Joshi. From her
evidence, it reveals that Khapa, Kalmeshwar, and Kelwad
Police Stations were attached to the joint court. The
inspection of the joint court at Saoner was carried out in June
…..19/-
Judgment
revn130.15
19
2005. In view of that inspection, directions were given to
complete moster work and, therefore, eight employees were
deputed to complete the moster work. It was further directed
to dispose of property Nos.40, 41, and 42 of 2002. These
numbers were also noted on the invoice attached with the
file. It was noticed by her that the properties are not
mentioned in the register Exh.302 and, therefore, she called
invoice register from the Saoner Police Station and it revealed
to her that in various in matters, the present applicant, who
was working as Property Clerk, has given receipts to the
concerned police stations, however those properties were not
mentioned in the property registers. She obtained
photocopies of those invoices from the police station reported
the matter to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer
directed to take a search of cases and after searching of 7-8
cases, she found that entries of muddemal were not taken in
the muddemal register. In view of that, she also verified the
account register and noticed that entries of cash muddemal
…..20/-
Judgment
revn130.15
20
were not taken in the concerned register in respect of amount
approximately Rs.13,000/-. This fact was also brought to the
notice of the Presiding Officer. After verifying the fact, the
Presiding Officer reported to learned Principal District and
Sessions, Nagpur on 7.9.2007. Learned Principal District and
Sessions, Nagpur deputed Superintendent Shri Shaikh to
verify the said fact. On 9.9.2007, PW1 Aparna Joshi along
with Superintendent Shri Shaikh prepared list of invoices in
respect of Saoner Police Station. Therefore, Superintendent
G.B.Patil has verified remaining invoices and submitted report
to learned Principal District and Sessions, Nagpur. Thereafter,
considering misappropriation of properties, as per directions
of Learned Principal District and Sessions, Nagpur, PW1
Aparna Joshi lodged report at Saoner Police Station. The said
report is at Exh.81.
19. Perusal of the said report, FIR Exh.82 was registered.
Thereafter, she also lodged reports Exhs.86, 87, 88, and 89 in
respect of muddemal properties of Khapa, Kalmeshwar,
…..21/-
Judgment
revn130.15
21
Kelwad, and Khaperkheda Police Stations. Subsequently, all
FIRs are amalgamated and the investigation was completed
and chargesheet was filed.
20. The evidence shows that Exh.302 is register of the year
2002 wherein muddemal properties upto property No.24
were mentioned and, thereafter, there are no entries in the
property register. On verification of invoices of the Saoner
Police Station, it reveals that in general property registers
since 26.7.2002 and 19.4.2002 no entries after property
No.24 of 2002 were taken. Property Nos.40, 41, and 42 of
2002 includes one stone, brick pieces, and iron rod. On
verification of the register, it further reveals that fictitious
property numbers were mentioned in the invoices, but entries
of those properties were not mentioned in the muddemal
register and cash muddemal properties. Therefore, CrCD
Register was also inspected and it is found that those cash
properties are not entered in the CrCD Register. Exh.303
muddemal register No.10 was also examined and it was
…..22/-
Judgment
revn130.15
22
noticed that muddemal properties upto 2003 were noted in
the register. Perusal of invoices received from Saoner Police
Station shows that muddemal property numbers onward 150
of 2003 were mentioned on invoices, but entries of the same
are not taken. Similarly, in property register No.11 Exh.304 it
was noticed that property numbers onward 36 of 2004 were
noted, but entries of those properties were not taken in
muddemal register No.11 Exh.304 for the year 2004. at
property register No.12 Exh.305, overwriting was noticed
against entry No.28 of 2005 to entry No.44 of 2005 which
was in respect cash amount. Signatures of the Presiding
Officer was also not taken and there was overwriting and the
overwriting was not initialed either by the present applicant
or the Presiding Officer.
21. Separate registers for the year 2003, 2004, and 2005,
were prepared. Despite the fact that register of the year
2003, after entry of 156/2003, was blank. Similarly, register
of the year 2004, after entry No.36 of 2004, was kept blank.
…..23/-
Judgment
revn130.15
23
PW1 Aparna Joshi has prepared Exh.677 Scheduled-I in
respect of misappropriated property and amount pertaining to
the Saoner Police Station was to the tune of Rs.1,05,663/-.
Exh.678 Scheduled-II is in respect of misappropriated amount
Rs.11,388/-. Exh.680 Schedule-1 is in respect of
misappropriated amount pertaining to Khapa Police Station
comes to Rs.45,165/- and Schedule-II of temporary
misappropriated amount comes to Rs.9,444/- pertaining to
the Khapa Police Station. Schedule-I Exh.682 is in respect of
misappropriated property of which amount comes to
Rs.66,426/- and Exh.683 Schedule-II is in respect of
temporary misappropriated amount of Rs.1,974/- pertaining
to the Kalmeshwar Police Station. Exh.684 Schedule-I is in
respect of misappropriated amount of Rs.30,258 and Exh.685
Schedule-II is in respect of temporary misappropriated
amount of Rs.19,297/- pertaining to the Kelwad Police
Station. Exh.686 Schedule-I is in respect of misappropriated
amount of Rs.14,601/- and Exh.687 Schedule-II is in respect
…..24/-
Judgment
revn130.15
24
of temporary misappropriated amount of Rs.4,526/-
pertaining to the Khaperkheda Police Station.
22. During her cross examination, an attempt was made to
show that during the inspection for the period from
1.10.2001 to 31.5.2005, no irregularity was notice, but she
has explained that compliance of the inspection note for the
year 2005 was going on and the Presiding Officer has passed
the order and prepared team of employees for completion of
moster work and at that relevant time, while complying with
the directions for disposal of the property Nos.40, 41, and 42,
this misappropriation was brought to the notice. An attempt
was made to show that she has no personal knowledge,
however being she is a Superintendent, she has deposed on
the basis of documents maintained during day to day affairs
at the relevant time. Much stress was given on the aspect that
no complaint was received from any police stations attached
to the Saoner Court, but mere complaint was not received is
not sufficient to come to conclusion that mere non filing of
…..25/-
Judgment
revn130.15
25
the complaint would be sufficient to say that the applicant has
not committed any offence.
23. Thus, as far as these documents Exhs.677 to 687
clearly established misappropriation at the hands of the
present applicants.
24. The evidence of PW1 Aparna Joshi is further
corroborated by PW4 Senior Clerk Shrikant Kolte working at
the the Court of Saoner, who deposed that on the directions of
Smt.Aparna Joshi that entry is to be taken of the final order
regarding property Nos.40, 41, and 42 in the muddemal
register. It was noticed by him that property numbers were
only upto 24 of 2002 and and, thereafter, pages were kept
blank. Therefore, he brought this fact to the notice of PW1
Aparna Joshi. Despite the cross examination, nothing is
elicited to falsify his version.
25. The evidence of PW7 Rajendrasing Thakur and PW11
Waman Rewatkar shows that they were attached to the Saoner
…..26/-
Judgment
revn130.15
26
Police Station. The offence was registered regarding
misappropriation of property of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said
amount was deposited by the police station in the year 2002
and obtained the signature of the concerned clerk on invoice
Exh.279. He has also deposited other properties vide Challans
Exhs.280 and 281, which were deposited by him.
26. The evidence of PW11 Waman Rewatkar categorically
shows that he was attached to the Saoner Police Station since
1996 to 1.6.2006. The duty assigned to him was to take note
in muddemal register of police station in respect of muddemal
seized. He used to send the property to the court and used to
maintain invoice challan in the office. On some occasions, he
used to visit the court. The invoice challans Exhs.332 and 333
and 341 to 495 are shown to him. The same were invoices in
respect of properties deposited by the said police station.
During his cross examination, efforts were made to
extract from him that these invoices were not verified with the
…..27/-
Judgment
revn130.15
27
entries in the police station. However, he stated that he
personally handled the muddemal register and invoices were
returned by him.
27. PW12 Ramesh Wadbudhe, was serving as Moharir with
Kelwad Police Station from 2003-2009 and used to carry
muddemal from the police station to the court. His evidence
also shows that invoice was given to him against the property
registered by him. Two registers B & C were seized vide
seizure Exh.517. He has handed over the invoices Exhs.518
and 445 to the present applicant, which bear the signature of
the present applicant.
28. PW13 Shammi Israil Sheikh is also police constable
dealing with the court work for the period 2001 to 2004. He
was assigned with the duty to take muddemal from the Saoner
Police Station to the Court and hand over the same to the
present applicant. Invoices Exhs.365 to 415 were handed over
to him by the present applicant. He has deposited the
…..28/-
Judgment
revn130.15
28
respective properties against invoices Exhs.342, 344 to 364.
The said invoices bear signatures of the present applicant.
29. The evidence of PW14 Vasant Rewatkar also shows that
he was also working as police constable and dealing with the
court works. The present applicant used to receive the
properties and issue invoices to him. He has deposited the
properties against which invoices challan Nos.577 to 641 were
given to him. He has deposited the said properties vide
challan Exhs.642 to 654.
30. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses, especially PW7
Rajendrasing Thakur, PW11 Waman Rewatkar, PW12 PW12
Ramesh Wadbudhe, PW13 Shammi Israil Sheikh, and PW14
Vasant Rewatkar, shows that they were assigned with the duty
to hand over the muddemal and accordingly, they have
obtained the invoices against the muddemal deposited by
them.
…..29/-
Judgment
revn130.15
29
31. Another material witness examined is PW10 Ravi
Bhagwat who was as Joint CJJD and JMFC at Saoner from
15.5.2005 to 31.5.2008. His evidence shows that during the
inspection for the period from 6.5.2002 to 18.6.2005, as per
the inspection note, direction was given to complete moster
work. During completion of the moster work, it was noted
that no final order was entered regarding property Nos.40 of
2002, 41 of 2002, and 42 of 2002 and it was noticed that the
last entry of the property was 24 of 2002 and, thereafter,
pages were kept blank. Therefore, as per his directions, the
information was collected from Saoner, Kelwad, Kalmeshwar,
Khapa, and Khaperkheda Police Stations and it was found that
the Property Clerk has mentioned property numbers on those
invoices, also put the stamp of the court on those challans, and
put his signatures, but not deposited the said muddemal or
the amounts. The properties were cash amounts and general
muddemal. There was misappropriation of Rs.2,43,113/- and
temporary misappropriation was of Rs.46,629/-. The
…..30/-
Judgment
revn130.15
30
temporary misappropriation means the amount was used by
the present applicant for his personal use for some time and it
was deposited belatedly.
32. Thus, the evidence of PW10 PW10 Ravi Bhagwat
corroborates the evidence of PW1 Aparna Joshi.
33. It was consistently argued that the original registers of
the police stations are not verified and it is not brought on
record whether such properties were seized and entered in the
muddemal register of the police stations.
34. After going through the judgment impugned in the
present revision, it shows that the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court, on scrutinizing the evidence, observed
that the applicant was Property Clerk for the period from
1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005.
35. The procedure for depositing the properties is
enumerated in the Criminal Manual. Paragraph Nos.67, 69,
70, 71, and 73 of the Criminal Manual read as under:
…..31/-
Judgment
revn130.15
31
“67. (1) When property is produced before a Court
with a list, the list should de exhibited and it should
be seen that each article is separately marked and
numbered for identification.
(2) Where any of the articles mentioned in the list
have been sent to the Chemical Analyzer for
examination, the corresponding numbers given to
those articles by the police while forwarding the
articles to the Chemical Analyzer, as well as the
numbers given to them by the Chemical Analyzer,
should also be shown in the list.
(3) If the property is seized without a list, a list of it
should be prepared and exhibited. This list should also
give where necessary, the particulars referred to sub-
paragraph (2).
(4) All the Sessions Judges and Magistrates should get
a map of the Record Room as well as a map of the
Muddemal Room of their Courts prepared, showing
therein the racks with numbers and category of record
of Muddemal kept on each rack, and should see that
the said map is fixed at the entrance of each Record
Room and Muddemal Room of their Courts.
…..32/-
Judgment
revn130.15
32
69. After the receipt of Muddemal and other property
along with the record of every Criminal Case in the
Court by the Criminal Sheristedar-cum-Clerk, it should
be immediately entered in the property Register to be
maintained in the following form and a note of the
Property Register Number should be taken on the
chargesheet (and in case of non-receipt of the
property, a note should also be taken that it is not
received with the charge-sheet).
The primary responsibility of making the entries of the
property in the Property Register and taking the notes
as aforesaid on the charge-sheet shall ordinarily be of
the Senior Clerk in the Court of a Magistrate and of
the Nazir in the Sessions Court. Such entries made in
the Property Register and notes taken on the charge-
sheet should be verified and countersigned by the
Magistrate or by the Clerk of the Court in the Sessions
Court in order to indicate that the property produced
in the Court has actually been entered.
Before passing any first orders, the Presiding Officer
should verify and confirm that the entries in the
Property Register and notes on the charge-sheet have
duly been made accordingly by the persons concerned,
…..33/-
Judgment
revn130.15
33
and in case they are not made accordingly, direct the
Nazir and the Clerk concerned to make the necessary
entries in the Property Register and take the necessary
notes on the charge-sheet before passing any first
orders in that behalf.
While sending all the papers in the cases placed on
dormant file to the District Record Rooms, according
to the instructions contained in para 83(iii) of Chapter
VI and paragraphs 17(9) and (10) of Chapter XX of
Criminal Manual, all the articles of Muddemal
property in such cases should not be returned or sent
back to the police stations concerned for safe custody
under any circumstances, but should normally be
preserved or kept in the custody of the Courts of the
Magistrates wherein cases are filed or trial is pending.
Only in exceptional cases, when there is no sufficient
space or accommodation available for the custody of
such property in such Courts of the Magistrates, the
articles of such muddemal properties should be sent to
the Nazir of the Sessions Court concerned for sale
custody after obtaining the orders of the District and
Sessions Judge in that behalf.
…..34/-
Judgment
revn130.15
34
For the purpose of making entries of such muddemal
articles received in the District Court from the
Criminal Courts, separate and common registers
should be maintained in the District Court. Such
register should not be Court-wise but they should
contain a column for entries indicating the Courts
from which the properties are received. The names of
the Courts from which the properties are received
should be noted specifically in red ink in column 3 of
such register above the Criminal Case numbers so as
to facilitate the distinguishing of muddemal properties
and the different Courts from which they are received.
When the muddemal properties and the records in the
cases on the dormant file are sent to the District
Courts for the safe custody and preservation, the
Magistrate concerned should call back the records of
such cases periodically to Issue warrants or
summonses, as the case may be.
The muddemal property herein does not include
valuable property.
…..35/-
Judgment
revn130.15
35
Sr. Date of Receipt of Criminal Case Name of Description Initials of the
No. the property No. parties of articles Magistrate or
Complainant/A with Clerk of the
ccused particulars Court,
and value Sessions
(weights in Court as to
case of the receipt.
valuables)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Order of Date of Date Signature of Name, Signature of Remarks,
Magistrate issue of and the recipient signature and the Magistrate if any
or Judge notice for manner of the address of the or Clerk of the
regarding return of of final property person court, Sessions
disposal the disposal with date identifying the Court.
with date muddemal recipient of the
property to muddemal
the property
claimant
and the
date fixed
for
appearance.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
70. (a) A separate Register for valuable properties in
the same form as the Property Register should be
maintained to facilitate constant check and supervision
valuable muddemal. The valuables should always be
returned in the presence d by the Magistrate or in the
Court of Sessions, by the Clerk of the Court over the
the Magistrate or, in the Sessions Court, in the
presence of the Clerk of the Court The entry in the
register regarding delivery of the property should be
…..36/-
Judgment
revn130.15
36
countersigned by the Magistrate or, in the Sessions
Court, by the Clerk of the Court.
(b) The following shall be treated as valuable
properties:
(i) All cash consisting of current coins and currency
notes irrespective of the total value;
(ii) Gold and silver coins and currency notes
withdrawn from circulation or which have ceased to
be legal tender;
(iii) Counterfeit coins and currency notes;
(iv) Gold, Silver and Platinum in whatever form
including articles or ornaments thereof;
(v) Precious stones, pearls and corals including articles
or jewellery made from or set with these;
(vi) Wrist watches, time-pieces, transistors, fountain-
pens and such other costly articles of luxury;
(vii) Curios and antiques of considerable value;
(viii) Opium, Ganja and other narcotics;
…..37/-
Judgment
revn130.15
37
(ix) All valuable securities, including Government and
other promissory notes negotiable instruments of all
kinds, debenture and share certificates security deeds
and deposit receipt and certificates;
(x) Title deeds relating to immovable property;
(xi) Important original documents; and
(xii) Such other articles which the Magistrate or the
Judge thinks should be regarded as valuable articles
having regard to their utility and value, and the
attraction the articles have for the public generally.
71. All Judicial Magistrates and clerks of the Court of
Session shall have a test check of 10 percent of the
items of property every month and a complete check
once in six months in case of non-valuable muddemal
property with reference to property register. They shall
verify the valuable property with reference to valuable
property register at least once a month. They shall
make an endorsement with date about such
verification, in the remarks column of the above
register and also make a report to the Sessions Judge
every month of having verified the valuable muddemal
…..38/-
Judgment
revn130.15
38
property and every six months of having verified the
other muddemal property.
73. (1)(a) As the scope for loss of muddemal property
is greater in the case of disposed of cases, the
Presiding Officer should see that the property in non-
appealable cases is disposed of as soon as possible
after such cases are decided
(b) In appealable cases, where the appeal lies to the
Sessions Court or the District Magistrate, the
muddemal property may be disposed of after a period
of 90 days from the date of the decision of the case, if
in the meanwhile no intimation of an appeal having
been fled has been received, but if such animation is
received before that period, such property shall not be
disposed of until the appeal is decided.
(c) In appealable cases, where the appeal lies to the
High Court but arises from the Metropolitan
Magistrate’s Court, the muddemal property may be
disposed of alter a period of 180 days from the date of
the decision of the case, if in the meanwhile no
intimation of an appeal having been filed in the High
Court has been received but if such an intimation is
received before that period, such property shall not be
…..39/-
Judgment
revn130.15
39
disposed of until the appeal is decided by the High
Court.
(d) In appealable cases, where the appeal lies to the
High Court but a from the Sessions Court, the
Muddemal property may be disposed of after a period
of one year from the date of the decision of the case, if
in the meanwhile no intimation of an appeal having
been filed in the High Court has been received, but if
such an intimation is received before that period, such
property shall not be disposed of until a period of one
year expires from the date of the decision of the
appeal to the High Court, and if in the meanwhile an
intimation is received by the Sessions Court of an
appeal having been filed before the Supreme Court,
such property shall not be disposed of until the appeal
is decided by the Supreme Court.
(2) Muddemal should be restored, when a non-
appealable sentence is passed on the expiration of two
months from the date of the sentence, except in the
case of livestock, or property subject to speedy and
natural decay, which may be restored at once, and
except in cases in which a bond is executed under sub
…..40/-
Judgment
revn130.15
40
section (2) of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
(3) In every case, after the expiry of the respective
periods mentioned in that behalf in sub-paragraphs
(1) and (2) above, the Magistrate should issue a
notice in duplicate or by a Registered Post A.D. or both
to the person entitled to receive back the muddemal
property and fix a date for appearance of such person
for receipt of the property. In case of dispute or doubt
regarding the identity of the claimant, the Court may,
in its discretion, direct the persons claiming claiming
to be entitled to receive the property under the orders
of the Court, to furnish such security as it deems fit for
return of the property or its value. If, after intimation,
the person fails to appear before the Court to receive
the muddemal on the fixed date or, if due to want of
address or otherwise it is not possible to give the
notice to the said person, the muddemal should be
sold at his cost by public auction and the amount so
realized be credited to Criminal Deposits. No sale will
be necessary in the case of property which consists of
cash only. The fact of issue of the notice as above, of
appearance of the claimant on the date fixed for
receipt of the Muddemal Property and actual delivery
…..41/-
Judgment
revn130.15
41
of the property to the recipient on that date or any
other date to which the matter may be adjourned,
should be entered in the Property Register.
Provided that if the value of the property is less than
Rs.100 the person entitled to receive back the
muddemal property may be served with a notice
issued under certificate of posting.
(4) A quarterly report should be submitted to the
Sessions Judge along with the one referred to in
paragraph 71, to the effect that the muddemal
property in cases decided six months prior to the date
of the report has been disposed of. The report should
also state the number of cases in which the muddemal
property remained to be disposed of, with the
necessary explanation therefor.
In order to enable the Presiding Officers and the
Clerks of the Courts to verify the muddemal property
with reference to the entries in the Property Register,
on the first of every month, the Senior Clerk in the
Judicial Magistrates’ Courts and the Nazir in the
Sessions Court should prepare the Balance Sheets of
undisposed of Muddemal Property, showing only the
numbers of the cases, the years and the serial numbers
…..42/-
Judgment
revn130.15
42
in the Property Register. It is, however, not necessary
to copy out the details of the articles therein. Every
day new additions, if any, should be entered therein
and the entries of the cases from the Balance Sheets in
which Muddemal Property has been disposed of
should be struck off.
The Senior Clerk and Nazir should obtain the
signatures of the Presiding Officers and the Clerks of
the Courts respectively on such Balance Sheets and the
same should be kept handy by the Muddemal Clerks.
The Judicial Magistrates and the Clerks of the Courts
should verify the Muddemal Property with the help of
the Balance Sheets. The Senior Clerks and the Nazir
should be held solely responsible for the preparation
and the correctness of the Balance Sheets.
All the Judicial Officers and the members of the staff
should bear in mind that it is their duty to see that
proper precautionary measures are taken every time
scrupulously for prevention of thefts of muddemal
properties from their Courts.
Whenever the Clerks in charge of Muddemal articles is
transferred or if any charge is made in his duties, the
…..43/-
Judgment
revn130.15
43
said Clerk should hand over the Muddemal articles to
the clerk taking over and the latter should take such
Muddemal articles in his charge after verifying the
same with reference to the Property Register, (which
includes both Property Registers viz, Valuable and
General) and with reference to the monthly Balance
Sheet.”
36. The applicant has not challenged the fact that he was
serving as Property Clerk at the relevant period. In view of
the procedure laid down, he was under obligation to take
entries in the property registers after due verification of the
said properties and to give acknowledgment on the copy of
the invoice challan. The proved documents which are already
referred sufficiently show that it was the applicant who has
received the said muddemal properties, but the same were
not entered in the property registers. The evidence on record
clearly demonstrates that the properties mentioned in the
invoices, though accepted, not entered into the relevant
…..44/-
Judgment
revn130.15
44
registers. There was final order of disposal of these properties
after the disposal of cases, but the said properties were not
found in the registers. The evidence of witnesses, as
discussed above, clearly demonstrates that amount of
Rs.2,45,989/- was entrusted to the present applicant to which
he failed to deposit the same. CrCD Register No.7 i.e.
relevant entry Exh.674 demonstrates that cash amount of
Rs.1,155/- was received on 6.12.2001 and deposited on
19.1.2002 vide CrCD NO.229 of 2002. Exh.675, the another
entry, demonstrates that cash amount of Rs.52/- was received
on 4.12.2001 and deposited on 19.1.2002. Entry Exh.676
demonstrates that cash amounts of Rs.755/- and Rs.705/-
were received on 28.12.2001, but the same were deposited on
28.1.2002 vide CrCD Nos.232 of 2002 and 233 of 2002.
37. Thus, Schedule of temporary misappropriation
Exhs.678, 683, and 685 tallies with the entries in the property
registers and the CrCD Registers. Thus, temporary
misappropriation was of Rs.27,629/-. Similarly, regarding
…..45/-
Judgment
revn130.15
45
general property register Exh.302 shows entries of property
Nos.59 of 2002 and 24 of 2002 and, thereafter, pages were
kept blank. In general property register No.10 Exh.303,
entries are taken to property No.1 of 2003 to 156 of 2003 and
page Nos.141 to 200 are kept blank. Similar is the position
in respect of register No.11 Exh.304 wherein page Nos.26 to
200 were kept blank and Exh.305, property register No.12,
wherein also the pages were kept blank. Entry Nos.28 of
2005 to 44 of 2005 in property register Exh.305 in respect of
cash amount were scored, but the signatures of the Presiding
Officer were not obtained. Thus, these entries demonstrate
that the cash amounts were received as muddemal, but the
said cash amounts were not transferred to the CrCD Registers.
38. Thus, the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution
sufficiently shows that the applicant has committed “criminal
breach of trust” and misappropriated amount of Rs.2,45,113/-
and temporary misappropriation was of Rs.46.629/-.
…..46/-
Judgment
revn130.15
46
39. Section 409 of the IPC deals with criminal breach of
trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent,
which is reproduced as under:
“409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or
by banker, merchant or agent- Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker,
merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.”
40. What amounts to “criminal breach of trust” is provided
under Section 405 of the IPC, which reads as follows:
“405. Criminal breach of trust.– Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that…..47/-
Judgment
revn130.15
47
property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge
of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so
to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
Explanation 1.– A person, being an employer of an
establishment whether exempted under section 17
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or
not who deducts the employee’s contribution from
the wages payable to the employee for credit to a
Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established
by any law for the time being in force, shall be
deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of
the contribution so deducted by him and if he
makes default in the payment of such contribution
to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be
deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the
said contribution in violation of a direction of law
as aforesaid.
…..48/-
Judgment
revn130.15
48
Explanation 2.– A person, being an employer, who
deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages
payable to the employee for credit to the
Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and
administered by the Employees’ State Insurance
Corporation established under the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed
to have been entrusted with the amount of the
contribution so deducted by him and if he makes
default in the payment of such contribution to the
said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be
deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the
said contribution in violation of a direction of law
as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased
person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs
him to divide the effects according to the will, and
appropriate them to his own use. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey,
entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it
shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum
…..49/-
Judgment
revn130.15
49
for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods.
A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at
Delhi. There is an express or implied contract
between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A
shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z
remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to
invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly
disobeys the direction and employs the money in
his own business. A has committed criminal breach
of trust.
(d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly
but in good faith, believing that it will be more for
Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal,
disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank
of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company’s
paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should
be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on
account of that loss, yet A, not having acted
dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of
trust.
(e) A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public
money and is either directed by law, or bound by a
contract, express or implied, with the Government,
…..50/-
Judgment
revn130.15
50
to pay into a certain treasury all the public money
which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the
money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be
carried by land or by water. A dishonestly
misappropriates the property. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.”
41. Thus, to attract the offence under Section 409 of the
IPC, two ingredients are to be established namely, i) the
accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted
with the property of which he is duty bound to account for;
and ii) the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted
it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who
entrusted it.
42. A crucial question is, whether essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 409 of the IPC are attracted.
43. The evidence adduced is already demonstrated that
involvement of the present applicant is established by the
…..51/-
Judgment
revn130.15
51
prosecution on the basis of the evidence adduced before the
court.
44. Sections 407 to 409 of the IPC make special provisions
for various cases in which property is entrusted to the
enumerated categories of persons who commit the offence. To
constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must
be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or
conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of legal
direction or of any legal contract: and the misappropriation or
conversion or disposal must be with a dishonest intention.
When a person allows others to misappropriate the money
entrusted to him that amounts to a criminal breach of trust as
defined by Section 405 . The section relatable to property in a
positive part and a negative part. The positive part deals with
criminal misappropriation or conversion of the property and
the negative part consists of dishonestly using or disposing of
the property in violation of any direction and of law or any
contract touching the discharge of trust.
…..52/-
Judgment
revn130.15
52
45. If the evidence in the present case is taken into
consideration, it sufficiently shows that the amounts were
entrusted to the present applicant and he has misused the
same for his own use and this fact was rightly considered by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
46. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down litmus test to
ascertain, whether case under Sections 409, 420, and 477A of
the IPC is made out or not.
47. In Criminal Appeal No.5/2010 decided on 13.12.2021
(N.Raghvender vs. State of A.P.), it has been observed that,
“the entrustment of public property and dishonest
misappropriation or use thereof in the manner illustrated
under Section 405 are a sine qua non for making an offence
punishable under Section 409 IPC. The expression ‘criminal
breach of trust’ is defined under Section 405 IPC which
provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner
entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property,
…..53/-
Judgment
revn130.15
53
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property
contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the
mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes
any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to
have committed criminal breach of trust.”
It has further been held that, “unless it is proved that
the accused, a public servant or a banker etc. was ‘entrusted’
with the property which he is duty bound to account for and
that such a person has committed criminal breach of trust,
Section 409 IPC may not be attracted. ‘Entrustment of
property’ is a wide and generic expression. While the initial
onus lies on the prosecution to show that the property in
question was ‘entrusted’ to the accused, it is not necessary to
prove further, the actual mode of entrustment of the property
or misappropriation thereof. Where the ‘entrustment’ is
admitted by the accused or has been established by the
prosecution, the burden then shifts on the accused to prove
…..54/-
Judgment
revn130.15
54
that the obligation vis-à-vis the entrusted property was carried
out in a legally and contractually acceptable manner.”
48. In the light of the above said observations, basic
requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405
are the requirements to prove conjointly i) entrustment and
ii) whether the accused was actuated by dishonest intention
or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to
the detriment of the persons who entrusted it.
49. As far as “intention” is concerned, for which direct
evidence would not be available, but certain tests envisage
that it can be ascertained on the basis of circumstances on
record.
50. The evidence of witnesses clearly shows that the
present applicant was acting as Property Clerk and was
having custody and domain over the Court’s properties which
include general properties and cash amounts. The cogent and
reliable evidence adduced shows and demonstrates that the
…..55/-
Judgment
revn130.15
55
applicant working as Property Clerk accepted amounts and
issued invoices, however he has not deposited the said
amounts and has not transferred the same to CrCD Register
and he has used the same for his personal use. Therefore,
there is a sufficient evidence which conclusively establishes
that the present applicant was incharge of the said properties.
He has misappropriated the amounts which were deposited
and some amounts were for temporary period used by him for
his personal use and thereby he has committed the offence of
“criminal breach of trust.”
51. Admittedly, the present applicant was working in a
Court where several litigants are approaching for getting
justice. The society is having an utmost faith in the judicial
system. In the light of the above faith, integrity and discipline
from the court staff is expected. The integrity and honesty
are essence of organizations like courts. The discipline is
absolutely imperative and no compromise can be made as far
as integrity of employees is concerned. Looking to the nature
…..56/-
Judgment
revn130.15
56
of services, which the applicant was rendering, sense of
integrity, commitment, and discipline are paramount. It is the
duty of the applicant to safeguard interests of the public who
are approaching the court for justice. The act of the applicant
is against interests of litigants and serious in nature and,
therefore, considering the seriousness of allegations, no
protection can be granted to him.
52. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Anwar Chand
Sab Nanadikar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003 (10)
SCC 521, observed that, “the court of law is described as “A
Temple of Justice.” Logically, the Presiding Officer is “Pujak”
and members of staff are “Sewaks.” It is, therefore, a matter
of grave concern when a “Sewak” is alleged to have
misappropriated funds of the temple.
53. Learned counsel for the applicant has also raised an
issue that in view of Section 197 of the CrPC, a sanction was
not obtained before prosecuting the present applicant.
…..57/-
Judgment
revn130.15
57
54. Language and tenor of Section 197 of the CrPC makes
it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts
done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act
purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act
done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority.
To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether
the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether
there is a reasonable connection with the official duty.
55. Thus, protection under Section 197 of the Code has its
limitations and protection is available when the act done by
public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his
official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for doing
the objectionable act.
56. A careful reading of Section 197 of the CrPC
unequivocally delineates a statutory bar on the Court’s
jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged against
public servants, save without the prior sanction of the
…..58/-
Judgment
revn130.15
58
appropriate government. The essential precondition for the
applicability of this provision is that the alleged offence must
have been committed by the public servant while acting in the
discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties.
The guiding principle governing the necessity of prior
sanction stands well settled. The only enquiry required is,
whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the
discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or
manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the
public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated.
57. In view of the above settled law, admittedly, the act
committed by the present applicant was not his official duty
and, therefore, protection under Section 197 of the CrPC is
not available with him.
58. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and
the evidence discussed above, offences under Sections 409,
…..59/-
Judgment
revn130.15
59
466, and 477 of the IPC are made out against the present
applicant.
59. In the light of the well settled principles, while
exercising revisional powers, the revisional court cannot
reappreciate the evidence and cannot come to a different
conclusion in a revision. The only scope of revision is to see,
correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentence, or
order.
60. In the revisional jurisdiction of this court, re-
appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated the
evidence and there is a consistent finding as to involvement of
the present applicant in the alleged offence and, therefore, I
do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and
order impugned in the revision.
61. In view of that, the revision being devoid of merits is
liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The
…..60/-
Judgment
revn130.15
60
applicant shall surrender before the Superintendent of Central
Jail, Nagpur to undergo the sentence on 17/04/2026.
Revision stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge …../-
Date: 08/04/2026 18:39:32