Share this article
Supreme Court restores acquittal in criminal breach of trust case
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has restored a former Telephone Department cashier’s acquittal under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment of money, misappropriation and dishonest intention.
The reportable judgment in Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019, was delivered on 8 October 2026. Its neutral citation is 2026 INSC 1099. Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar constituted the Bench. Justice Chandurkar authored the judgment.
The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s conviction and restored the trial court’s acquittal. It also rejected the approach of treating weaknesses in the accused’s explanation as a substitute for proof of the prosecution case. These findings appear principally in paragraphs 13–20 and 24–26.
Download the complete judgment — PDF, 29 pages, or view the judgment online.
Prosecution alleged delayed deposits and missing telephone collections
Dongardive worked as Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk in the Telephone Department at Aurangabad. The prosecution alleged that he collected INR 873,737 from customers between 1 July and 9 October 1993. Of that sum, it alleged that INR 388,035 was deposited late and INR 475,702 was not deposited with the Government.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, acquitted him on 20 February 2002 in RCC No. 80163 of 1996. The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, reversed that decision on 12 October 2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2002. It imposed one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of INR 5,000, with one month’s further imprisonment in default of payment.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the High Court’s reasons for disturbing the acquittal.
Missing cash records undermined proof of entrustment
The investigating officer admitted that the original cashbook, audit report and records of collections had not been produced despite his requests. The defence also sought the daily cash handover register and the register recording supply of receipt books. Those records were not produced before the trial court.
The Supreme Court held that the missing records were material to establishing the alleged receipt of money and the subsequent short deposit or non-deposit. It approved the trial court’s adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding relevant material held by the complainant department. The High Court had instead expected the appellant to produce the registers to establish that he had handed over or deposited the money. Paragraph 14 explains why that approach was wrong.
The Court also found no reliable link between the appellant and a ten-page printed statement relied upon by the prosecution. It bore neither his signature nor his handwriting. The relevant receipt books were not supported by records showing that they had been supplied to him.
Search defects had to be assessed with the other weaknesses
The prosecution relied on the alleged seizure of 46 documentary items from the appellant’s house. Both seizure witnesses failed to support its account. The investigating officer’s evidence also disclosed shortcomings in the seizure record and non-compliance with Sections 100(4) and 100(7) of India’s Code of Criminal Procedure.
In those circumstances, the Court found that the seizure had not been duly proved merely through the investigating officer’s statement without further corroboration. The prosecution retained the burden of proving the seizure.
However, paragraph 19 expressly states that non-compliance with Section 100 does not, by itself, invalidate a seizure. The Court assessed the irregularity together with the other weaknesses in this prosecution, particularly in reviewing a reversal of acquittal. The judgment therefore does not establish an automatic acquittal rule for every defective search or every hostile seizure witness.
Dishonest intention remained an essential ingredient
The Court explained that criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment or control over property and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal within the statutory definition. A breach of trust without dishonest intention does not establish the offence. Temporary misappropriation can nevertheless amount to criminal breach of trust if the necessary dishonest element is proved.
Here, the Court found insufficient evidence of entrustment and misappropriation and no evidence establishing dishonest intention. It further held that the prosecution could not make up for missing proof by relying on the accused’s alleged inability to explain doubtful documents. Paragraphs 12 and 24–25 address those principles.
Court also identified the absence of a sentencing hearing
The Supreme Court noted a separate defect: after reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant for the first time, the High Court sentenced him without hearing him on punishment. Referring to Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), 2026 INSC 559, it reiterated that an appellate court convicting for the first time must hear the accused on sentence and itself impose the appropriate punishment.
That issue did not require a sentencing remand in this case because the Supreme Court found the conviction itself unsustainable. It restored the acquittal, allowed the appeal and cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds. Paragraphs 21–23 and 26 record these matters.
Judgment particulars and source
- Case: Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra.
- Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.
- Appeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019.
- Decision: 8 October 2026.
- Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar.
- Author: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
- Citation and status: 2026 INSC 1099; reportable.
- Result: appeal allowed; trial court acquittal under Section 409 IPC restored.
This report concerns an Indian judgment. It is not a ruling of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, and it is not binding precedent in Pakistan.
The download reproduces the supplied 29-page judgment unchanged. For the court’s own record, use the Supreme Court of India’s official judgment search with the decision date 8 October 2026 and Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019.