The Supreme Court on October 8 set aside the Bombay High Court's conviction of a former telephone department cashier and restored the trial court's acquittal. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal filed by Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive against the State of Maharashtra.
Background
According to the prosecution, Dongardive worked as a Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk with the Telephone Department at Aurangabad. Between July 1 and October 9, 1993, he allegedly collected ₹8,73,737 as telephone bill payments. Of this, ₹3,88,035 was said to have reached the Government account late, while ₹4,75,702 was never credited. A complaint by the Assistant Accounts Officer led to a trial under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, which covers criminal breach of trust by public servants.
The trial court acquitted him in February 2002, calling the evidence vague and noting that the seizure of 46 documents from his house did not follow the prescribed procedure. In October 2017, the High Court reversed that order and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.
The Supreme Court first reminded that an appellate court must be slow to disturb an acquittal. It then turned to entrustment, the first requirement of the offence. The police inspector who began the investigation had admitted that the original cashbook, audit report and daily register were never shown to him despite repeated requests. On this, the Bench observed:
"However, in the absence of these material documents, it would be difficult to hold that there was, in fact, entrustment of the amount of cash to the appellant, which is one of the basic ingredients for constituting breach of trust."
The Court also agreed with the trial court's decision to draw an adverse inference against the department for not producing the registers the appellant had asked for.
On the seizure, the Bench noted that both witnesses to it had turned hostile and that no list of seized articles was given to the appellant. It clarified that such lapses do not automatically invalidate a seizure, but said they weigh in the accused's favour when combined with other doubts. A ten-page printed list relied on by the prosecution carried no signature, and nothing linked the appellant to its figures.
The Bench also pointed out that the High Court had sentenced him without hearing him on punishment, relying on its recent ruling in Mukesh Kumar Yadav. It further held that the High Court wrongly shifted the burden onto the appellant to explain the seized documents.
Concluding the judgment, the Bench said:
"Thus, having considered the entire material on record, we are of the considered view that the trial Court had rightly acquitted the appellant. The prosecution had failed to prove entrustment of property to the appellant. The material on record is insufficient to conclude that the appellant was guilty of misappropriation of that property. There is also no evidence whatsoever to indicate any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant that would have resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code."
The Court set aside the High Court's judgment of October 12, 2017, restored the acquittal, and cancelled his bail bonds.
Case Details
Case Title: Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019
Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: October 8, 2026
