Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

J&K High Court Acquits Bank Cashier - Insufficient Evidence in Criminal Breach of Trust Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent Judgement, the High Court rendered a verdict acquitting a bank cashier who was charged with criminal breach of trust. The court, after careful examination of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

High court highlighted the importance of proving both the entrustment of the property and the dishonest misappropriation or conversion to personal use by the accused. Justice Mohan Lal, delivering the judgment, stated, "The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner/convict beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offense under section 409 RPC."

The defense counsel, representing the petitioner/convict, argued that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient and cogent evidence to link their client to the alleged offense. Quoting the judgment, the defense counsel emphasized, "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."

Furthermore, the court referred to several precedent cases, including Janak Raj vs. State, The State of Maharashtra vs. Mohan Radhkrishna Pednekar, and M/S. Rahmania Coffee Works vs. Unknown, which reiterated the need for substantial evidence to prove the offense of criminal breach of trust.

The judgment emphasized that mere misappropriation of funds is not sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust and that there must be clear evidence of dishonest intention. "Every such incident of missing the amount in the counter cannot be said to be an act of criminal breach of trust," the judgment noted.

The acquittal of the bank cashier has raised questions about the adequacy of the prosecution's evidence and its failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The decision serves as a reminder of the burden of proof in criminal cases and the importance of substantial evidence to secure a conviction.

The judgment is likely to have implications for future cases involving criminal breach of trust, as it reiterates the necessity of proving both the entrustment of property and the accused's dishonest misappropriation or conversion to personal use.

The defense hailed the court's decision, stating that it upholds the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and affirms the importance of a robust legal system that safeguards the rights of the accused. The prosecution, on the other hand, may consider its options for further action in light of the acquittal.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2023.

Bishan Dass vs State of J&K

Latest Legal News