STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus KARANVIR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
KARA NV IR 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860 : 
Ss.405, 409-Postmaster was handed over an amount for purchase of 
NSCs-He deposited such amount in post office only on initiation of 
C 
enquiry-Conviction u!s.409--Correctness of--Held: Correct as the amount 
entrusted to the postmaster was public money and wus required to be utilised 
for the purpose for which it was handed over-Further, actual manner of 
misappropriation is not required to be proved by prosecution. 
D 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : 
S.313-Examination under-Scope and extent of 
Prosecution case was that PW-3 had deposited a sum of Rs. 8000 
with respondent who was a Post Master, for purchase of National 
Saving Certificates (NSC). The certificates were not handed over to 
PW-3 even after a month. On making enquiries, he found that NSCs 
had not been issued. He thereafter made complaint with the postal 
authorities and authorities entrusted the matter to PW-4 for conducting 
enquiry. 
F 
Thereafter, respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 4200 in the Post 
G 
H 
Office. After few days, he deposited Rs. 4000. Criminal proceedings 
were initiated against him. 
Magistrate convicted respondent under 
Section 409 IPC and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 which was upheld 
by Sessions Judge. On revision, High Court held that the prosecution 
had not proved misappropriation on the part of the respondent, hence 
conviction was not sustainable. State filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The respondent was a Post Master. He was holding an 
office of public trust. The complainant entrusted the amount to the 
666 
.. 
STATE v. KARANVIR 
667 
respondent for the purpose of purchasing National Savings Certificates. 
A 
The amount was received by the respondent on behalf of the postal 
authorities, hence it became public money. It was required to be utilised 
for the purpose for which the same was handed over to the respondent. 
(670-F-G) 
1.2. The High Court opined that the entrustment was proved. 
When an enquiry came to be made by PW-4, the respondent deposited 
the amount in two instalments along with a sum of Rs. 200 by way of 
interest. The respondent being a public officer had the requisite knowledge 
that the amount carried interest. Thereafter, the postal savings certificates 
came to be issued. The respondent thus thought himself liable to pay 
the said amount with interest, so as to reimburse to the complainant the 
amount to which he was entitled by way of interest for depositing the 
said amount. The High Court, completely misdirected itself in opining 
that it was obligatory on the part of PW-3 or PW-4 to state in their 
complaint that the accused committed criminal misappropriation with 
intention to utilise the amount for his personal use. The very fact that 
the respondent retained with him the enfrusted amount is not disputed. 
If he did not utilise the amount for the purpose for which the same had 
been deposited, an offence must be held to have been committed. 
[670-H, 671-A-D) 
2. It is well settled that the actual manner of misappropriation is 
not required to be proved hy the prosecution. Once entrustment is 
proved, it was for the accused to prove as to how the property entrusted 
to him was dealt with in view of Section 405 of the IPC. If the respondent 
had failed to produce any material for this purpose, the prosecution 
should not suffer therefor. (671-F) 
3. The Trial Judge as also the Sessions Judge arrived at concurrent 
findings of fact. The High Court, misdirected itself in passing the 
impugned judgment while exercising its revision jurisdiction. (671-GJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
N. Bhargavan Pillai & Anr. v. State of Kera/a, (2004] 13 sec 217, 
G 
relied on. 
4.1. The contention on behalf of respondent that no question was 
put to him while he was being examined under Section 313 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, with a view to give him an opportunity to 
explain whether the amount was given to him for his personal use or 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
he converted the money for his personal use, cannot be accepted. While 
examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court is 
merely required to ask such question which has been brought on record 
as against the respondent. [671-H, 672-A-BI 
4.2. The responcient in fact had admitted the entire prosecution 
case for all intent and 

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