SHABBIR AHMED SHERKHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 782 
SHABBIR AHMED SHERKHAN 
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 2005 
MARCH 20, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
C 
s. 409- Criminal breach of trust by public servant- Police 
official receiving money from department for TA and DA of his 
colleagues - Not giving the money to them and absenting 
himself from duty without any sanctioned leave - Conviction 
and sentence of six months imprisonment -
Upheld by 
o appellate court, and High Court in revision - HELD: Admittedly 
accused had received the money for a particular purpose and 
did not hand over the same to persons concerned and, he 
remained absent unauthorisedly -Accused has already served 
the sentence - Order of courts below need no interference. 
E 
The appellant, a police official, was convicted and 
sentenced to six months imprisonment on the 
accusations that he received Rs.12,0001- from the 
department as TA and DA for his colleagues but did not 
pay the amount to them and unauthorisedly remained 
F 
absent from duty, stood proved. The appellate court and 
the High Court in revision having upheld order, the 
accused filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: The only plea taken on behalf of the accused 
H 
before the High Court was that a lenient approach should 
be adopted. The High Court rejected the plea holding that 
the courts below had already taken lenient view of the 
matter. The appellant has served out the sentence. 
> 
... 
SHABBIR AHMED SHERKHAN V. 
783 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
Admittedly, the appellant had received the money for a A 
particular purpose, which he did not fulfil, and remained 
absent without any leave being sanctioned. That being 
so, there is no scope for interference in the orders of the 
court below. [para 5] [ 785-A-C] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B 
No.1042 of 2005 
From the Judgement and Order dated 08.02.2005 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal 
Revision Application No. 14 of -2005. 
c 
lmtiazAhmed, Nagma lmtiaz (for Equity Lex Associates), 
for the Appellants. 
Aniruddha P. Mayee, R.K. Adsure, Atul, Vishal, for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
D 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned 
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision E 
Application No. 14 of 2005. The appellant was convicted for 
offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (in short the 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo six 
months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
with default stipulation. 
F 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The appellant was on leave between 5.6.1998to14.6.1998 
which was duly sanctioned by the department. 
On 14.7.1998 a First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') G 
was registered on a written complaint under Section 409 IPC 
against the appellant wherein it was stated that a Dog Squad 
Team consisting of the appellant as well as three other police 
officials of Thane Police Station were required to bring the dogs 
for training to be started from 5.6.1998 and for the said purpose, H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
the D.S.P., Thane, Rural by his order dated 3.6.98 sanctioned 
TA.ID.A. to the handlers of dogs and that on 4.6.98 the appellant 
had taken a cash amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards the Traveling 
Allowance from the Police Cashier for himself and on behalf of 
the remaining handlers of dogs and that he did not make the 
B 
payment to the concerned Police Officials and instead he went 
to his native place and did not attend the training at Pune and 
through out the period till 14. 7.98 he was absent from his duties. 
The appellant was arrested on the same day and after 
investigation a charge sheet was filed and the charges were 
C 
framed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane against 
the appellant under Section 409 IPC. 
On 14.1.2004 the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
Thane, accepting on the case of the prosecution and depositions 
of the prosecution witnesses, held the Petitioner guilty for the 
D 
offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him 
for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/ was 
also imposed, with default stipulation. 
On 8.12.2004 the appellant filed a Criminal Appeal No.9/ 
2004 against the judgment and order of the trial court convicting 
E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.