Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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