Court Must Draw Adverse Inference Against Prosecution For Non-Production Of Material Records: Supreme Court

"The non-production of the concerned register and documents when considered along with the admissions of the IO would lead to an inference that such material was not at all available with the complainant." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated October 8, 2026, underscored the necessity of strict compliance with evidentiary standards in criminal breach of trust cases, holding that the prosecution’s failure to produce vital records despite being called upon by the Investigating Officer justifies drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that in the absence of essential documents such as cashbooks and daily registers, the foundational ingredient of "entrustment" cannot be assumed, thereby rendering a conviction unsustainable.

Prosecution Fails To Establish Entrustment

The case originated from allegations against the appellant, a Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk with the Telephone Department, who was accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the IPC. While the trial court acquitted the appellant due to a lack of specific evidence and vague records, the Bombay High Court reversed this acquittal, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the entire prosecution case relied upon documentary evidence that was never produced, failing to link the appellant to the alleged misappropriation of specific funds.

Adverse Inference Against Withholding Party

The court found that the appellant had repeatedly filed applications seeking the production of key records, including the daily cash handover register and stock registers, which were in the exclusive custody of the Telephone Department. By failing to produce these documents, the prosecution invited the application of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The bench held that when a party withholds vital documents in a serious criminal trial, the court is legally justified in drawing an adverse inference against that party.

Evidence Act And The Burden Of Proof

The court reiterated that the onus of proving a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely on the prosecution and never shifts. Relying on the landmark ratio in Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) INSC 204, the bench emphasized that an accused need only provide a probable explanation to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version. The court found that the High Court had erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant to demonstrate his innocence, contrary to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Mandatory Duty To Hear Accused On Sentence

The Supreme Court further clarified a crucial procedural requirement, noting that the High Court had failed to hear the appellant on the quantum of sentence after reversing the acquittal and recording a conviction for the first time. Invoking the principles laid down in Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) (2026) INSC 559, the bench held that an appellate court is duty-bound to hear the convict on the question of sentence. Failing to do so constitutes a material infirmity that vitiates the sentencing process.

Need For Compliance With Section 100 CrPC

Addressing the seizure of documents, the court observed that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 100(7) of the CrPC. While procedural irregularities do not always vitiate a trial, the court held that when considered cumulatively with other infirmities—such as the hostility of panch witnesses—the seizure of 46 articles from the appellant’s residence could not be deemed proven. Citing Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956) AIR SC 411 and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) INSC 96, the court assessed these lapses as factors that significantly weakened the prosecution's case.

Final Order Restores Acquittal

The court concluded that the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal based on insufficient and unproved material. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, was restored. The appellant’s bail bonds stand cancelled, and the court effectively signaled that a conviction for criminal breach of trust cannot stand on the edifice of missing records and shifted burdens of proof.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2026