2012 (2) TMI 711 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Propriety, legality, and correctness of the acquittal order.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 405 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust).
3. Evaluation of evidence regarding offences u/s 406, 420, and 468 IPC.
4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with an acquittal order.

Summary:

1. Propriety, legality, and correctness of the acquittal order:
The revision challenges the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam, in C.C.No. 630/06. The accused, a former Restaurant Manager, was prosecuted for offences u/s 406, 420, and 468 IPC. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt. The de facto complainant, represented by its Director, assailed the propriety, legality, and correctness of this order.

2. Interpretation and application of Section 405 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust):
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate misinterpreted the scope of 'entrustment' under Section 405 IPC, leading to erroneous conclusions. The Magistrate wrongly held that entrustment must continue until misappropriation occurs. The counsel cited State of H.P. v. Karanvir, 2006 (3) SCC 381, to argue that once entrustment is proved, the manner of misappropriation need not be established. The court noted that the Magistrate's interpretation was egregiously faulty and perverse.

3. Evaluation of evidence regarding offences u/s 406, 420, and 468 IPC:
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked several exhibits to prove the guilt of the accused. The Magistrate concluded that the prosecution failed to prove criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery. The court found that the Magistrate's approach in evaluating the evidence was flawed. The evidence of PW.4, the Bank Manager, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext.P18) were misappreciated. The Magistrate's reasoning to discard Ext.P18 was found to be perverse. The court held that the findings regarding offences u/s 420 and 468 IPC also needed re-examination.

4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with an acquittal order:
The learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued that revisional jurisdiction to interfere with an acquittal order should be exercised sparingly. The court noted that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if the acquittal order is perverse. The court found that the Magistrate's judgment was based on erroneous interpretation and misappreciation of evidence, warranting interference.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the acquittal order and remitted the case for fresh disposal. The Magistrate was directed to re-evaluate the evidence and dispose of the case in accordance with law within eight weeks. The accused was directed to appear before the court on 28.03.2012. The revision was allowed, and the records were sent back forthwith.