LexANWAR CHAND SAB NANADIKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ANWAR CHAND SAB NANADIKAR A V. STATE OF KARNATAKA SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 405 and 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant-Ingredients of-Accused, who was property clerk in the court of Judicial Magistrate, allegedly C misappropriated properties belonging to the court and sold them to four persons-Trial court acquitted the accused as the evidence was not satisfactory regarding entrustment and misappropriation-But the High Court convicted the accused-Correctness of-Held: To sustain conviction under S.409 two ingredients must be proved viz., (i) that the accused was entrusted with property and (ii) that the accused misappropriated it or D converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it-In the instant case, accused had custody as well as domain over the court's property which he had misused-Hence conviction upheld. Words and Phrases : "Criminal breach of trust"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 405 of the Penal Code, I 860. E According to the prosecution, the appellant, who was the property clerk in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, misappropriated certain F properties belonging to the court and sold them to four persons. It was the further case of the prosecution that the properties in question were under the domain of the appellant. The appellant-accused was charged with an offence under Section G 409 of the Penal Code, 1860. Trial Court acquitted him. However, the High Court convicted the appellant. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : l. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations H 875 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A under Section 405 IPC are the requirements to prove con-jointly (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons wl10 entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which B would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime. (878-G-H) 2. The evidence clearly shows that the accused was acting as a property clerk and had custody as well as domain over the courts' properties, which included the articles with which the present case is C concerned. (879-A-B) D E 3. In the present case, the position is totally different. No explanation, much less plausible has been given. The High Court is, therefore, right in setting aside the order of acquittal. (880-F-G) Rabindra Kumar v. State of Orissa, AIR (1977) SC 170, held inapplicable. Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay, AIR (1960) SC 889, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1712 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.95 of the Kamataka High F Court in Crl. A. No. 738 of 1989. K.B. Sinha, G.V. Chandrasekhar and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. : The Court of law is described as a temple of justice. Logically, the Presiding Officer is the "Pujak" and members of staff are the "Sewaks", It is, therefore, a matter of grave concern when a H "Sewak" is alleged to have misappropriated funds of the temple. - ANWAR CHAND SAB NANADIKAR v. STATE [PASAYAT,J.] 877 Appellant who was the property clerk in the Court of Judicial A Magistrate, First Class, Chikodi, allegedly misappropriated properties belonging to the Court and sold them to four other persons who were acquitted by the trial Court along with the present appellant. While the appellant stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') the rest B four stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution alleged that while the properties in question were under the domain of the appellant, he sold them to accused nos. 2 to 5 during the period 2.3.1979 to 6.6.1985 and, therefore, committed the offence as alleged. After charge was framed all the five persons faced trial before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, C Chikodi, who by judgment dated 4th July, 1989 held that all the accused persons were not guilty of the changes. He, inter alia, observed that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.