Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Criminal Breach of Trust Case: Prosecution Cannot Shift Burden to Accused for Its Own Evidentiary Failures

Overview of the Case

In Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India), the Supreme Court of India allowed a criminal appeal filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court that had reversed a trial court acquittal and imposed rigorous imprisonment on the appellant. The Supreme Court, after examining the entire evidence on record, restored the original acquittal, holding that the prosecution had fundamentally failed to establish the core ingredients of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Reference: Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019 | Date of Judgment: 08/10/2026

Background and Factual Matrix

The appellant, employed as a Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk with the Telephone Department at Aurangabad, faced prosecution for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution's case was that during the period from 01.07.1993 to 09.10.1993, the appellant collected telephone charges totalling ₹8,73,737/- from subscribers. Of this amount:

  • ₹3,88,035/- was allegedly deposited with the Government treasury belatedly, constituting what the prosecution characterised as temporary misappropriation.
  • ₹4,75,702/- was allegedly never credited to the Government account at all.

Following a complaint lodged by the Assistant Accounts Officer on 11.10.1993, offences under Sections 409, 477 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were registered. After investigation, charge under Section 409 alone was framed. The appellant denied the charge and elected to be tried.

Trial Court Proceedings and Acquittal

After examining all prosecution witnesses and documentary exhibits, the trial court concluded that the evidence was vague and general in nature. Specifically:

  • The exact amounts collected by the appellant and the amounts subsequently deposited were never stated with adequate particularity or supported by reliable records.
  • Registers stated to have been seized could not be properly exhibited, as prosecution witnesses declined to support the panchnama.
  • The procedure mandated under Section 100(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872 was not followed during the seizure of forty-six articles from the appellant's residence.

The trial court accordingly acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof.

High Court Reversal and Conviction

The Bombay High Court, on appeal by the State, reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to:

  • Rigorous imprisonment for one year
  • Fine of ₹5,000/-, with one month's further imprisonment in default

The High Court reassessed the documentary evidence — including Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 — along with the handwriting expert's opinion and the appellant's conduct, concluding that guilt had been established. Crucially, the High Court also observed that the appellant ought to have produced the daily registers himself to demonstrate that he had deposited the amounts or handed them over to the Head Cashier.

The appellant challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Advanced Before the Supreme Court

Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant

Senior Advocates appearing for the appellant urged:

  1. The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust — namely, entrustment of property and dishonest intention during misappropriation — as required under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. The original cashbook, daily registers, audit report and other foundational documents were never produced, making proof of entrustment impossible.
  3. The appellant had repeatedly filed applications before the trial court seeking production of the daily cash handover register (01.02.1993 to 05.10.1993) and the stock register of receipt books — both withheld by the Telephone Department.
  4. The trial court rightly drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the prosecution for suppressing these material records.
  5. The High Court improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to prove his own innocence — contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Reliance was placed on Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri Vs. State of Travancore-Cochin (AIR 1953 SC 478) and R. Venkatakrishnan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009 INSC 1037).

Submissions on Behalf of the State

The State maintained that: