“Accused Acquitted in Misappropriation Case Due to Lack of Evidence” – Allahabad High Court
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, under the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma, acquitted Pradeep Kumar, who was previously convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged misappropriation of stock.
Justice Sharma, in her judgment, observed, “Just because the accused did not attend his duties and disappeared without handing over the charge to anybody else, this inference cannot be drawn that he, in fact, bungled with the stock or misappropriated them.” This statement was a pivotal point in overturning the previous conviction.
The case, dating back to an FIR lodged in 1985, involved the accused, Pradeep Kumar, an accountant at Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Rampur. Kumar was accused of not attending his duties and misappropriating goods from the godown. However, the High Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
Justice Sharma critically noted the absence of concrete evidence regarding the actual stock entrusted to Kumar and the specifics of the missing goods. The judgment highlighted, “The prosecution has failed to prove that he was entrusted duty to keep secure the stock or the receiving and release or distribution of stock or that it was his duty to maintain the data in stock register.”
The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of detailed and accurate evidence in criminal proceedings. “The burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution properly,” Justice Sharma added, underscoring the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
This ruling not only acquitted Kumar of the charges but also discharged him from his bail and personal bond obligations, marking the end of a long-drawn legal battle. The case serves as a reminder of the judicial system’s commitment to thoroughness and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Representing the appellant were advocates Amar Saran and Avneesh Tripathi, while the respondent, State of U.P., was represented by an Assistant Government Advocate (AGA). The judgment is seen as a significant development in criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation.
Decided on : 06-11-2023
PRADEEP KUMAR VS STATE OF U. P.
