The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a former court property clerk who was convicted of siphoning off 'muddemal' cash and tampering with judicial records. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke upheld the conviction, observing that it is a matter of grave concern when a sewak (servant) misappropriates funds of the temple.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a resident of Ramtek, was posted as a property clerk attached to the civil judge junior division court at Saoner between June 1, 2001, and May 31, 2005. According to the prosecution, he accepted cash 'muddemal' and valuable property from police stations in Saoner, Khapa, Kalmeshwar, Kelwad, and Khaperkheda. He issued acknowledgements to police personnel but failed to enter the transactions in court property registers.
Details of Misappropriation
Investigators found that Rs 2.45 lakh was misappropriated, while another Rs 46,929 was temporarily diverted and later deposited in the criminal court deposit account after delays. The court noted that several pages in property registers had been deliberately left blank after specific entries, and some cash entries showed overwriting without the signatures of presiding officers. Evidence also showed that invoice challans bearing the accused's signatures were issued despite corresponding entries being absent in official records.
Legal Principles and Observations
Quoting the Supreme Court's ruling in Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar versus State of Karnataka, Justice Joshi-Phalke observed: 'The court of law is described as a temple of justice. Logically, the presiding officer is pujak and members of staff are sewaks.' The court said the allegations against the accused struck at the integrity expected from judicial staff and directly affected public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Rejection of Defence Arguments
The defence argued that sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure was mandatory before prosecution of a public servant. However, the court held that misappropriation of entrusted funds could not be treated as an act connected with official duty. 'Integrity and honesty are the essence of organisations like courts,' Justice Joshi-Phalke observed, adding that 'the petitioner's act is against interests of litigants and serious in nature.'
Concurrent Findings Upheld
The high court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, holding that revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised to reappreciate evidence unless there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice. The prosecution relied on testimony from 14 witnesses, including court staff and police personnel who said they handed over 'muddemal' property and cash to the accused and received signed invoices in return.
The conviction was under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), Section 466 (forgery of court or public records), and Section 477 (fraudulent destruction or falsification of accounts) of the Indian Penal Code.
