Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

J&K Court Acquits Accused in Criminal Breach of Trust Case Citing "Weak and Fragile Evidence"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan Lal presiding over the bench acquitted the accused in a criminal breach of trust case under Section 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The verdict was delivered on [date of decision not mentioned], wherein the court highlighted the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The case revolved around allegations of misappropriation of funds, and the prosecution had charged the accused with criminal breach of trust. However, the court found the evidence provided by the prosecution to be weak, fragile, and lacking in credibility, leading to doubts about the entire prosecution case.

The judge emphasized the importance of proving two essential elements for the offence under Section 409 RPC - the entrustment of money and dishonest misappropriation. The court quoted legal precedents, stating, "To prove the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, the prosecution has to prove, firstly, entrustment of the property to the accused, and secondly, dishonest misappropriation of the said property by the accused."

Citing specific judicial precedents, the court reiterated that "Mere misappropriation will not amount to criminal breach of trust. It must be dishonest." The judgment drew parallels with previous cases, emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to provide sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of money.

In its decision, the court remarked, "The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not been able to put forth in their evidence a ring of truth, so as to inspire confidence in this court. Evidence of prosecution witnesses is therefore qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to bring the nexus between the petitioner/convict and commission of offences indicted against him."

The acquittal came as a result of the court's assessment, evaluation, and estimation of the evidence presented by the prosecution, which failed to prove a direct link between the accused and the alleged offence. The court deemed it hazardous to hold the petitioner/convict guilty based on the weak, shaky, and unacceptable evidence.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role played by evidence in criminal cases and the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlights the importance of ensuring the legal principles of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are met for convictions under Section 409 RPC.

The acquitted petitioner/convict, Bishan Dass, expressed relief following the verdict and thanked his legal team for their diligent defense throughout the trial.

Date of Decision: 19.07.2023

Bishan Dass, vs State of J&K Through SHO Police Station Katra.

Latest Legal News