Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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