In a recent case decided by Bombay High Court on 14.04.2024, Justice S. M. Modak slammed Police and Judges for their lackadaisical approach in looking at the most relevant evidence i.e., register and journals.
The case is related to a postmaster who was working at Khambewadi Post office. He was alleged to misappropriate Rs.28,834/- because the amount collected from customers was not deposited into the postal department account. This misappropriation was revealed when Assistant Superintendent from Post Office at Panvel conducted an inspection of the documents. A complaint was filed against the post master with Vavoshi Police outpost from Khalapur Police Station and the FIR was registered under section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and section 468 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The trial of Sakpal was conducted before the Judicial Magistrate at Khalapur in Raigad district of Maharashtra who acquitted him for the offence under Section 468 (forgery) of IPC due to inconclusive handwriting analysis; but he was convicted for the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 409 because he returned the money to the customers without informing his superiors and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment in addition to Rs.2,000/- being the fine amount.
The conviction was challenged before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel which upheld the order of the trial court based on witness testimonies indicating the postmaster took the money. But the court failed to address the missing registers or the fact that the seized registers covered a different period.
Aggrieved by the earlier decisions, Sakpal approached the High Court with a revision application. The legality of the order is challenged before the Court.
Justice Modak criticized the lackadaisical approach of police investigation and handling of the case against Sakpal at the beginning stage in the lower courts. He specified reasons why these testimonies were not at all leading to any conclusion:
- The relevant registers for the alleged crime period (2006-2007) were never seized by the police. Inspite of that, they seized irrelevant registers from an earlier period (2004-2005).
- These irrelevant registers weren’t even claimed as an evidence in court.
- The lower courts failed to address these problems with the investigation, which the High Court found unacceptable.
- Without the proper and relevant registers, proving misappropriation by the side of Sakpal was impossible. The witness testimonies alone weren’t enough to hold him responsible.
Overall, the High Court mentioned some serious flaws in the prosecution’s case and the orders passed by lower courts.
Keeping the same in view, the court allowed the revision and set aside the order of conviction of the Trial court which was affirmed by the the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel. The court ordered him to be released from the jail.
CASE NAME: ANAND SAKPAL (APPLICANT) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (RESPONDENT), CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.4181 OF 2024.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments