Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

"Accused Acquitted in Misappropriation Case Due to Lack of Evidence" – Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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. 

Similar News