Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Chaturvedi vs State Of M.P. on 10 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.889 OF 2012
(NARESH CHATURVEDI
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.890 OF 2012
(SANJAY GUPTA
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
SHRI R.K. SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ABHIJIT SINGH
TOMAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS.
SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH BHADORIYA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 02.07.2025
Delivered on : 10.07.2025
JUDGMENT
Per: ANIL VERMA J.
Both these criminal appeals are arising from the common
judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988), Gwalior in Special Case No.4/2007.
Details of conviction and sentence are as under:
Naresh Chaturvedi:
Conviction U/s Sentence Fine Default (in lieu
of fine)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
2
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Section 13(1)(d) 1 year RI 2,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
Section 13(1)(c) 3 years RI 5,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(2)
of Prevention of
Corruption Act r/w
Section 409 of IPC
Section 13(1)(d) 1 year RI 2,000/- 1 month RI
r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
Section 420 of IPC 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
Section 120-B of 3 years RI 1000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Section 201/34 of 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Sanjay Gupta:
Conviction U/s Sentence Fine Default (in lieu
of fine)
Section 420 of IPC 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
Section 120-B of 3 years RI 1000/- 1 month RI
IPC
Section 201/34 of 3 years RI 2000/- 1 month RI
IPC
2. It is an admitted fact that at the time of incident i.e. on 11.5.2003
appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was posted as Depo Manager at Madhya
Pradesh Pathya Pustak Nigam, Gwalior (in short ‘Nigam’).
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.2003, SHO K.N. Sharma of
Police Station Janakganj, Gwalior received a telephonic information
through an informer that scrap books of Nigam are taking in one vehicle.
After receiving the aforesaid information, ASI Lal Singh and Head
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
3
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Constable Surendra reached the place of incident and intercepted a Tata
407 vehicle bearing Registration No.MP20-G-3809 and found inside
some book gunny bags and thereafter, vehicle along with the books were
brought to the Police Station Janakganj and after opening the bundles, it
has been gathered that aforesaid books were provided free of cost for
distribution to the Primary Schools of Nigam and these books had been
purchased by the Firm – Narayan Das Ramswaroop by showing the
books as scrap books and appellant Naresh Chaturvedi being Manager of
the Nigam, violated the prescribed procedure, tender etc, for the purpose
of selling the books in a scrap. It is also alleged that appellant Naresh
Chaturvedi sold the books of total weight 15 tonnes by showing 10
tonnes of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of those books, which have been purchased
by co-accused Sanjay Gupta and appellant Naresh Chaturvedi by
misusing his capacity as a public servant, committed breach of trust and
caused financial loss to the Government. After seizing books and
account books from the possession of appellant Sanjay Gupta, offence
was registered against them.
4. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet
against the appellants. Learned Trial Court framed the charges under
Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 13(1)(c) r/w
Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 409 of IPC, Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act
r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, Section 420 of IPC and Section 120-B and
201/34 of IPC against the appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and charges
framed under Section 109 of IPC, Section 8 of PC Act, Sections 201/34,
420 and 120-B of IPC against appellant Sanjay Gupta.
5. Appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that at the time of
incident appellant Naresh Chaturvedi did not sell the aforesaid books to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
4
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
any scrap dealer and the books were being shifted in a new Godam
which has been situated in Gol Pahadiya, Gwalior and when the vehicle
was on the way, it was intercepted by the police and a false case has
been registered against the appellants.
6. Prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses, while the
appellants have not examined any witness in their defence.
7. The Trial Court, after hearing the submission of both the parties
and scrutinizing the evidence available on record, convicted the
appellants for the offences mentioned hereinabove.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellants have preferred these
two separate criminal appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Naresh Chaturvedi
contended that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court
on the basis of improper appreciation of evidence. No independent
witness supported the case of prosecution and only on the basis of
statement of police personnel, he has been wrongly convicted even the
evidence given by the police witnesses do not inspire confidence.
Appellant was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Seizure
memo (Ex.P/1) has been made only at the instance of Vishnu, who is
driver of matador and Vishnu was not examined before the Trial Court.
There is no evidence on record that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi sold the
books to scrap dealer/appellant Sanjay Gupta in lieu of Rs.50,000/-.
Although sample of handwriting of the appellants have been taken, but
prosecution did not prove any report of handwriting expert. Nothing is
available on record that the alleged books were sold out as scrap. No bill
voucher has been proved. There are material omissions and
contradictions in the statement of Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
5
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
regarding place of incident. Although Bhagwati Prasad Sharma who
categorically in his evidednce admitted that books and Matador were not
seized from the shop of scrap dealer, but he was not declared hostile by
prosecution. There are material omissions and contradictions regarding
place of incident. It is proved that at the time of incident, the seized
books were transporting to the Office of Nigam situated at Gol Pahadiya,
but the books were wrongly seized by the police. Statement of ASI Lal
Singh was not supported by the FIR. AS Lal Singh (PW-20) was also
not duly authorized to investigate the matter under Prevention of
Corruption Act, therefore, the entire trial is vitiated.
10. It is further contended on behalf of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi
that Swaroop Gupta and K.N. Sharma (PW-26) categorically in their
cross-examination admitted that under the pressure of police, Kanti
Kumar Khandelwal had made entry in the stock register at police station
and Ex.P/48 was written under the direction of ASI Lal Singh (PW-20).
Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubts.
Not a single book has been produced and exhibited before the Trial
Court. Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellants. Hence,
he prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and appellant Naresh
Chaturvedi be acquitted from all the leveled charges.
11. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Sanjay Gupta (CRA
No.890/2012) also contended that the appellant has been wrongly
convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of improper appreciation of
evidence. Appellant Sanjay Gupta was not the owner of the alleged scrap
shop. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of
ASI Lal Singh (PW-20) and the FIR regarding the cost of the books. It is
not proved that the books were seized from the shop of the scrap dealer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
6
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Since article A/6 is only a photocopy, therefore, it is inadmissible in
evidence. No reliable evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to
prove that the books were sold to appellant Sanjay Gupta and under the
pressure of police, Kanti Kumar Khandelwal made a false entry in the
said register. Hence, he prays that appeal be allowed and the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court be set aside and appellant Sanjay Gupta be
acquitted from all the charges.
12. Heard both the parties and perused the entire record with due care.
13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janeshwar Das Aggrawal vs.
State of U.P. reported in 1981 SCC (Cri.) 616 has laid down the law of
land that before conviction under Section 409 of IPC can be recorded,
prosecution must prove two essential ingredients, they are:
“(i) the factum of entrustment; and
(ii) the factum of misappropriation of entrusted
articles.
The Supreme Court further held that even if
it be assumed that entrusment was proved, in
absence of any evidence to show either direct or
circumstantial that accused has misappropriated the
article, the conviction cannot be accorded under
section 409 of IPC and the conviction which was
accorded was set aside.”
14. By testing the aforesaid principles as laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court, let be examined the evidence, which has been placed by the
prosecution before the Trial Court.
15. It is an admitted fact that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was posted
as Depo Manager with Nigam during 2001-2003. General Manager
Ashok Verma (PW-18), categorically stated that at the time of incident,
Naresh Chaturvedi was working as Depo Manager at Gwalior, but he has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
7
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
no right to sell the books in a scrap as he was not permitted by the office
to sell out the aforesaid books as a scrap.
16. Senior Auditor Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3) also deposed that he
came to know through the newspaper that books of Moti Mahal Depo
has been sold out by Naresh Chaturvedi in a scrap to rag picker
(Kabadi). LDC Smt. Manjulata Shrivastava (PW-4) also deposed in
same manner that Depo Manager has no right to sell the scrap books
without obtaining prior permission from the Headquarters.
17. Some employee of Nigam Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1),
Umesh Jha (PW-6), Harbhan Singh (PW-9), Ganesh Shitoke (PW-19)
also deposed in the same manner and also describe the procedure for
selling of scrap.
18. Anil Goswami (PW-10) in his evidence categorically deposed that
in compliance of the order issued by the General Manager of Nigam, he
along with the Senior Manager (Audit) conducted the enquiry and
thereafter submitted physical verification report regarding books and
during the enquiry, accordingly deficit of the books has been found.
Then, they had submitted the report (Ex.P/9) before the Managing
Director, Bhopal.
19. From perusal of statement of Anil Goswami (PW-10), it is clear
that he has not supported the case of prosecution and he categorically
admitted that when he conducted the physical verification of the
concerned Depo, appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was not present there and
he has checked both the Depo and keys of both Depo was with Incharge
Mahesh Parashar. Therefore, it is clear that physical verification of the
Depo was not conducted in presence of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and
even key of the depo was not recovered from his possession. Although
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
8
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Anil Goswami (PW-10) has not supported the case of prosecution, but
the prosecution did not make any request before the trial for declaring
him as a hostile witness, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the
statement of Anil Goswami (PW-10).
20. Further, learned counsel for appellant Naresh Chaturvedi argued
that prosecution has utterly failed to adduce any cogent evidence in
order to prove that the appellant was entrusted of the said books and he
has misappropriated the entrusted articles. Although as per Ex.P/10,
some of the stock register and cash book have been recovered from the
possession of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi but Depo Manager Anil
Goswami (PW-10) in Para 11 of his cross-examination, admitted that
physical verification of the books were done twice in a year in
comparison with ledger, but he did not know when physical verification
was condcuted during the tenure of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi and he
himself did not make any physical verification during tenure of appellant
Naresh Chaturvedi. Senior Auditor Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3) also in
his cross-examination admitted that during his tenure, no major fault has
been found in the Depo. LDC Mahendra Singh Dandotiya (PW-5) in his
cross-examination also admitted that no books has been sold out to any
scrap dealer before him. Concerned Store Keeper was not examined by
the prosecution, therefore, in absence of such material evidence on
record, prosecution has failed to prove that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi
was entrusted with the aforesaid books.
21. It is settled position of law that burden of proof was on the
prosecution to prove the charges and since the prosecution has failed to
discharge its burden by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, conviction
which has been accorded is based on no evidence. (See: the case of Dr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
9
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
S.L. Goswami vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1972 SC 716.).
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case
prosecution did not adduce any material documentary evidence that
appellant Naresh Chaturvedi was entrusted with the aforesaid books.
Even no stock entry has been proved by the prosecution and physical
verification report (Ex.P/9) is not clear about intrustment of aforesaid
books, therefore, the case of prosecution appears to be very doubtful and
the factum of entrustment of the books is not proved in the matter.
22. So far as the criminal conspiracy is concerned, Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Edmund S Lyngdoh vs. State of Meghalaya
reported in (2016) 15 SCC 572 has held as under:
33. To bring home the guilt of the criminal
conspiracy, prosecution should prove ;(i) that the
accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act
that was illegal or was to be done by illegal means;
(ii) that some overt act was done by one of the
accused in pursuance of the agreement. The
essence of conspiracy is that there should be an
agreement between persons to do one or other of
the acts constituting the act under Section 120B
IPC.”
23. In the instant case, appellant Naresh Chaturvedi is alleged to be
conspired with co-accused Sanjay Gupta and allegedly sold the books to
other at an inflated price as against the then prevalent market price.
Agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary
implications and the inference can be drawn on the proved facts. The
facts and incriminating circumstances so proved must form the full chain
whereby the agreement between the accused persons and their guilt can
be safely inferred. In the instant case, allegedly the books were
transported by Matador and Vishnu was the Matador driver and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
10
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
therefore, Vishnu must be material witness of theses facts in the present
case, but surprisingly prosecution has failed to examine Vishnu before
the Trial Court. It is also noteworthy that both the appellants were not
present at the time of incident in the said vehicle, even owner of the said
matador was not examined by the prosecution.
24. Apart from above, it is also to be seen that allegedly as per
prosecution, books of seizure memo Ex.P/1 has been made from the
possession of driver Vishnu, therefore, non-examination of this material
witness Vishnu is fatal to the prosecution. Appellant Naresh Chaturvedi
has taken a specific defence that earlier the Depo was situated at
Motimahal, but the local residents made a complaint that transportation
of books of Nigam through trucks may be dangerous because it is
residential area, where the children used to play on the said premises and
an accident has been taken place prior a year, therefore, the local
residents filed a complaint before the Mayor, Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior for shifting of the said Depo from Motimahal to other place,
preferably outside the city. After obtaining permission from the higher
authorities, the depo was shifted to a rented premises situated at Gol
Pahadiya Chauraha, A.B. Road, Gwalior and the said premises was taken
on rent after execution of rent agreement with the owner Harbans Lal
Gupta. Because of this at the time of incident, the books of the Depo was
transporting to shift it in a new Depo at Gol Pahadiya and during
shifting, matador was seized by the police authorities due to some
confusion.
25. Peon of the Depo Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1) in his evidence
categorically admitted that at the time of incident, the books were
transporting to Gol Pahadiya Office. Same fact was also admitted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
11
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Smt. Bhawana Ratnakar (PW-2), Dineshchand Goyal (PW-3), Smt.
Manjulata Shrivastava (PW-4), Mahendra Singh Dandotiya (PW-5),
Umesh Jha (PW-6) and other witnesses. Depo Manager Anil (PW-10)
also in his cross-examination admitted that at the time of incident, Depo
at Motimahal and Depo at Golpahadiya both were in the possession of
Nigam.
26. Y.K. Chouksey (PW-12) also admitted in his cross-examination
that premises at Gol Pahadiya was taken on rent and after obtaining
permission from the higher authorities, it was being shifted.
27. ASI Lal Singh (PW-20) who had made seizure (Ex.P/1) of the
aforesaid books from the possession of Vishnu, Driver in his cross-
examination categorically admitted that no books were recovered from
any Depo of the scrap dealer and place of incident was nearby A.B.
Road, which way also goes towards Gol Pahadiya as the Depo of Nigam
was situated at Gol Pahadiya.
28. Hemant Gupta (PW-27) also deposed in his evidence that his
father Harbans Lal Gupta had rented out the said premises to the Nigam,
which is situated at Gol Pahadiya and after obtaining possession, the
employees of Depo started shifting of the books to Gol Pahadiya Office.
The rent agreement was Article S/1. It is also noteworthy that appellant
Sanjay Gupta is not the scrap dealer.
29. Therefore, it is clear that on the basis of complaint (Ex.P/2) made
by local residents and after obtaining due permission regarding shifting
of the Depo, the same was shifted to Gol Pahadiya, which has been
officially taken by Depo through rent agreement prior to the incident. It
is also proved by letter dated 4.6.2003 (Ex.P/20) which has been written
by General Manager of Nigam, Bhopal that the Depo of Harbans Lal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
12
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
Gupta was taken on rent vide order dated 28.8.2003 (Ex.P/22).
30. Both the appellants also challenged the investigation proceeding
on several grounds. CSP R.S. Narwariya (PW-24) in his evidence
deposed that he had recorded the memorandum statement (Ex.P/27) of
appellant Sanjay Gupta and on the basis of aforesaid memorandum he
had recovered a letter Article A/6 written by appellant Naresh
Chaturvedi. It is alleged that the aforesaid letter has been recovered
through seizure memo (Ex.P/47). But both the seizure witnesses of
Ex.P/47, Vishnu @ Vishvanath and Gangaram were not examined by the
prosecution, therefore seizure proceedings appears to be doubtful. It is
remarkable that letter (Article A/6) is only a photocopy, its original
document was never produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
31. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoorelal vs.
State of M.P. reported in ILR [2008] MP 1229 has held that
confessional statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
is not absolute admissible in evidence. Only so far as it relates to
information about recovery or discovery would only be admissible in
evidence. But, in the instant case it is not proved by the independent
witnesses and its original document has not been produced and letter
(Article A/6) is a only photocopy and prosecution did not file any
relevant application before the Trial Court for proving it by secondary
evidence, therefore, photocopy of the said document is not admissible in
evidence (See: the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ratanlal
vs. Kishanlal & ors. reported in ILR [2012] M.P. 131 & Rajesh Kumar
vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. reported in 2009 (III) MPJR 211), therefore,
the photocopy of same (Article A/6) is not admissible in evidence and
mere confessional statement of co-accused Sanjay Gupta cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
13
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
admissible in respect of other co-accused persons.
32. There are material contradictions in the statement of ASI Lal
Singh (PW-20) and other witnesses regarding material facts. It is not
proved by the prosecution that when actually the information was
received by police through informer (Mukhbir) and when Assistant Sub
Inspector Lal Singh went to place of incident in view of direction of
K.N. Sharma (PW-26). Entries of Rojnamcha and also timings of FIR
contradict the version given by Lal Singh (PW-20), therefore, it creates
doubts about the investigation and it is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt that books were seized from the shop of scrap dealer.
33. It is admitted position that none of the books was seized from the
shop of scrap dealer and all the books alleged to have been seized from
the matador. Both the appellants are neither the owner nor driver of the
said matador, they were not present in the said matador, therefore, it is
not proved that books were sold by accused to scrap dealer as scrap
books.
34. K.N. Sharma (PW-26) in his statement admitted that Ex.P/48 was
written under his direction by Assistant Sub Inspector Lal Singh, it
cannot be ignored that not a single book, which was alleged to be seized
by the prosecution was produced in the Trial Court and no such book
was exhibited in the Trial Court, therefore, no reliance can be placed on
the prosecution case. Prosecution has failed to prove any bill voucher or
register that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has sold out books of Nigam in
a scrap.
35. It is remarkable that during the investigation sample of signature
of appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has been taken, but prosecution did not
file any report of handwriting expert, therefore, in absence of material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
14
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
evidence, legal presumption can be drawn against the prosecution.
36. In the present case, prosecution has also failed to prove that
appellant Naresh Chaturvedi has made any demand of money from co-
accused Sanjay Gupta. Prosecution did not examine any witness to
establish that any money as an illegal gratification has been paid to
appellant Naresh Chaturvedi by co-accused Sanjay Gupta or any other
person. Nothing is available on record that appellant Naresh Chaturvedi
being a public servant, has obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Therefore, in
absence of any proof of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification,
such legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act cannot be drawn
against the appellants. Hence, in absence of aforesaid material evidence,
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
37. On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has wrongly taken into
consideration inculpatory part of the defence of the appellants while the
exculpatory part of the defence was not considered while passing the
judgment which is incorrect according to law because an admission or
confession/statement of an accused can be considered in whole and it
cannot be done that inculpatory part of the defence statement be
considered and exculpatory part is not considered. In the instant case,
independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the
police witness does not inspire confidence, therefore, their statements
cannot be relied upon.
38. It is also pertinent to mention here that Surendra Kumar Jha (PW-
30) although did not support the prosecution regarding the seizure of
bundle of books from the shop of co-accused, but he was not declared
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
15
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, his version is binding on the
prosecution whereby he stated that when books were taken from
Motimahal Office to godown situated at Gol Pahadiya and in the way
books were seized by the police and taken to police station where false
panchnamas were prepared.
39. There is no evidence on the record that appellant Naresh hatched
any conspiracy with other co-accused persons and by misusing his
position of public servant taken any undue advantage or profit and
cheated anybody and caused to disappear any evidence with intent to
screen himself or any offender, therefore, no offence under section 13(1)
(d) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, under Section 13(1)(c) r/w
Section 13(2) of PC Act r/o Section 409 of IPC, under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, under Section 420 of IPC, under Section
120-B of IPC and under Section 201/34 of IPC is proved against the
appellants.
40. On the basis of foregoing analysis, facts and circumstances of the
instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against both the
appellants. Hence, it cannot be held that both the appellants had
misappropriated any entrusted article.
41. Resultantly, both the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed and
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court is hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted
from all the charges.
42. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds
stand discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the
appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
16
CRA NOS.889/2012 & 890/2012
43. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
Trial Court is also upheld.
44. Let a copy of this order along with record of the Court below be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
45. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 7/11/2025
10:42:08 AM
[ad_1]
Source link