{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution submitted that the departmental inquiries and documentary records showed unauthorized withdrawals and collusion among multiple employees. It asserted that the accused failed to justify large sums withdrawn via cheques. The defense emphasized the absence of direct bank testimony or complainants verifying any missing amounts, argued that several accused merely followed instructions from A1, and contended that standards for disciplinary inquiries were insufficient to establish criminal guilt. They maintained that suspicion alone could not shift the burden of proof without concrete evidence linking each accused to specific misappropriated amounts.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice K. SURENDER" ], "case_number": [ "CRL.A. No. 729 of 2007", "CRL.A. No. 737 of 2007", "CRL.A. No. 789 of 2007", "CRL.A. No. 793 of 2007", "CRL.A. No. 828 of 2007", "CRL.A. No. 850 of 2007" ], "cases_referred": [ "Balvir Singh vs State of Uttarakhand [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1261]", "R.Sai Bharathi vs J.Jayalalitha [AIR 2004 SC 892]", "State of Uttar Pradesh vs Sukhbasi [AIR 1985 SC 1224]", "Haricharan vs State of Rajasthan [AIR 1998 SC 244]", "Anthony D\u2019Souza vs State of Karnataka [(2003) 1 SCC 259]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "No arguments are outlined in the excerpt.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "16.04.2024", "facts": "No factual details are provided in the excerpt. It only lists multiple criminal appeals with their parties and counsel, without offering any background on the events leading to the dispute or the procedural history.", "final_status": "Not specified in the excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This section primarily provides the designation of several connected criminal appeals, the parties involved, and the date of judgment pronouncement. It does not contain any prayer, factual background, or conclusions regarding the appeals.", "held": "Not specified in the excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No legal issues are described in the excerpt.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} }, "chunk_10": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution maintained that the evidence supported guilt. The defense argued that there were missing links in the chain of evidence, requiring acquittal. The court concluded the evidence was incomplete, thereby favoring the accused.", "cases_referred": [ "Anthony D\u2019Souza vs State of Karnataka (2003) 1 SCC 259" ], "delivered_date": "16.04.2024", "facts": "This section of the document does not provide background facts or procedural history. It primarily discusses the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence while adjudicating criminal appeals.", "final_status": "Appeals are allowed except for one which is dismissed as abated.", "formatted_summary": "The court found that the prosecution did not establish a complete chain of evidence to prove the accused\u2019s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of the judgment against several accused and the dismissal of one appeal as abated. The court extended the benefit of doubt and discharged bail bonds accordingly.", "held": "The court set aside the lower court\u0027s judgment against certain accused due to insufficient evidence and allowed their appeals. The appeal concerning one accused stood dismissed as abated.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the prosecution\u2019s evidence sufficiently established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and whether inconsistencies in the chain of evidence warranted extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "No detailed arguments are provided in the text. The appellants appear to contest the convictions while the prosecution relies on the findings of embezzlement and misappropriation.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "15.06.2007", "facts": "The Registrar of Osmania University lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging large-scale embezzlement of overtime allowances, misappropriation of funds, and irregular purchases of printing materials at inflated prices. A case was registered, and after investigation, charges were brought against the accused. During trial and appeal, several accused passed away, leading to dismissal of proceedings as abated. The appeals now challenge the trial court\u2019s conviction.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in the provided text", "formatted_summary": "Multiple appeals arise from convictions for corruption at Osmania University relating to alleged embezzlement of overtime allowances and fraudulent procurement of printing materials. Several accused died during trial or appeal, leading to dismissal of proceedings against them. The text does not provide final outcomes for the remaining accused.", "held": "No final holding is indicated in the provided text", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the accused misappropriated university funds through unauthorized disbursement of overtime allowances and inflated purchases, and if they conspired to commit criminal misconduct.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "IPC": "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.", "Prevention of Corruption Act": "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC." } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution contends that documentary evidence such as cheques, overtime bills, and registers demonstrates a collaborative misappropriation by multiple accused. Defense counsel argues that only A1 had authority over the accounts and that reliance on the departmental inquiry was insufficient to establish the other accused\u2019s culpability.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "This case arises from allegations that certain employees of Osmania University\u2019s printing press (A1, A2, A3, and others) misappropriated funds by issuing self-cheques and third-party cheques, inflating bills for printing materials, and making unaccounted payments. The Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an investigation, gathered documents, and recorded witness statements. A charge sheet was filed, and the Special Judge ultimately convicted several of the accused, leading to the present challenge on appeal.", "final_status": "No final status is disclosed in the excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt details allegations of misappropriation of funds at Osmania University\u2019s printing press, the subsequent ACB investigation, and the trial court\u2019s conviction of certain accused. The discussion highlights the charges brought under corruption and penal provisions, the evidence presented, and the arguments on appeal contesting the reliance on an internal inquiry and the extent of each accused\u2019s involvement.", "held": "No holding is disclosed in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the trial court correctly relied on departmental inquiries and documentary evidence to find all accused responsible for misappropriation, or if only A1, who allegedly held cheque-writing and disbursing powers, should be held liable.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self -cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/ - was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps w as not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self -cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/ - was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps w as misappropriated , punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC .\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000 -26ps and Rs.4,83,032 -50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n6) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have entered into criminal conspiracy while discharging their duties and misappropriated the amounts to an extent of Rs,17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404.18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000.26ps and Rs.4,83,032.50 ps for purchase of printing material, punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC.\n\n7) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have falsified accounts willfully with an intention to defraud the institution and caused wrongful loss to the printing press, Osmania University, Hyderabad to an extent of Rs,17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404.18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000.26ps and Rs.4,83,032.50 ps, punishable under Section 477 -A IPC r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Learned Special Judge convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC, Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC, Section 277- A r/w 120- B IPC.", "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self -cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/ - was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps w as not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self -cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/ - was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps w as misappropriated , punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC .\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000 -26ps and Rs.4,83,032 -50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Learned Special Judge convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC, Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC, Section 277- A r/w 120- B IPC." } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The defense maintained that A5 and A7 had no proper inquiry against them and no employee claimed paying back excess funds. They questioned reliance on an alleged confession and emphasized that A4 merely followed A1\u0027s instructions. The prosecution argued that A1, responsible for handling and accounting for the withdrawn amounts, failed to justify their use, indicating collusive misappropriation by all accused. The findings of the departmental inquiry were cited to support the charges.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "This case arises from allegations that A1, in charge of disbursing overtime allowances and purchasing printing materials at Osmania University, misappropriated funds with the assistance of other accused. A departmental inquiry was conducted to examine recordkeeping, overtime payments, and machinery purchases, and statements were collected from several witnesses. The matter was then tried before the Special Judge, where documentary evidence and witness testimonies were presented.", "final_status": "convicted", "formatted_summary": "The section discusses allegations of misappropriation of funds earmarked for overtime allowances and printing supplies at Osmania University. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the individuals involved, including A1 as the principal accused. The defense contested the prosecution\u2019s reliance on inquiry findings and argued insufficient evidence against A5 and A7. The prosecution contended A1 bore primary responsibility for the unaccounted amounts. Based on the evidence and the inquiry report, the Special Judge found the accused guilty, concluding they misappropriated the withdrawn funds.", "held": "The court affirmed that A1 and other accused misappropriated funds, upholding the convictions in light of the inquiry findings and documentary evidence presented.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether A1 and other accused misappropriated funds intended for overtime allowances and printing material purchases, and whether the departmental inquiry and supporting documents established their involvement and liability.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} }, "chunk_5": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution relies on witness testimonies and departmental inquiries suggesting that A1, aided by A2, A3, and A4, engaged in unauthorized disbursements and questionable record-keeping. The defendants appear to challenge the reliability of these inquiries, pointing to incomplete records and a lack of direct evidence linking them to any missing funds.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The excerpt describes multiple witnesses (P.W.1 through P.W.27) who testified regarding alleged misappropriation of funds in the Osmania University Press. A1 was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, and inquiries revealed irregularities in overtime payments, printing paper purchases, stationery acquisitions, and computer equipment procurement. Departmental inquiries were conducted, registers were examined, and witnesses provided accounts of how cheques were issued and cashed. No final court adjudication or outcome is mentioned in this portion.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in the text provided.", "formatted_summary": "Testimonies from various university employees and committee members detail claims of financial mismanagement in Osmania University Press. A1, who held signing authority, is alleged to have overseen unauthorized payments and improvident purchases. Multiple witnesses recount how cheques were drawn, distributed, and sometimes not properly entered in logs. Departmental inquiries found discrepancies, but the excerpt does not indicate a judicial resolution.", "held": "No conclusive holding by the court is stated in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the accused collectively misappropriated university funds through irregular payments and unauthorized procurement, and the scope of accountability for each individual\u2019s role in the alleged misconduct.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} }, "chunk_6": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution relies on the testimonies of multiple witnesses and documentary evidence to show unauthorized transactions and irregular practices. Cross-examination questions appear aimed at challenging the link between the accused and the actual withdrawal or receipt of funds, with witnesses acknowledging difficulties in establishing direct entrustment of money to A1.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The provided text describes witness testimonies (P.W.25 through P.W.38) regarding alleged irregularities at the Osmania University Press between 1990 and 1993. Various firms were said to have received third-party cheques for purchased goods and printing services, while overtime allowances were also paid out. Departmental inquiries were conducted, with some accused facing charges and others exonerated. The excerpt records the sequence of witness depositions and the investigative steps taken, including gathering of documents and preparation of statements, but does not include any final judgment or outcome.", "final_status": "No final outcome is provided in the excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This section presents testimonies from various witnesses regarding alleged misuse of funds at the Osmania University Press, covering third-party cheques, overtime allowances, and purchasing of equipment. It details an internal departmental inquiry leading to charges against certain individuals but does not include the matter\u2019s ultimate judicial resolution.", "held": "The excerpt does not disclose a conclusion or ruling by the court.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "The primary legal question appears to be whether the accused, especially A1, improperly directed or misused university funds by authorizing third-party cheques and overtime payments without proper evidence or documentation.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} }, "chunk_7": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution contends that documentary evidence and statements show that funds were withdrawn and improperly accounted for, placing the burden on the accused to explain the usage. The defense denies these contentions, arguing there is no direct evidence of non-payment or complaints from any supposed recipients, and thus no proof of misappropriation.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "A departmental investigation was initiated regarding alleged misappropriation of funds and irregularities in handling overtime allowances, purchase of materials, and issuance of cheques. Various witnesses, including investigating officers, collected documents and prepared statements to show amounts drawn for overtime payments and other expenses. A complaint dated 03.12.1993 led to the FIR on 01.01.1994. The accused were charged with wrongdoing, though they have denied the allegations. The matter reached the trial court after these preliminary inquiries and the filing of charges.", "final_status": "", "formatted_summary": "This section details the investigation into alleged financial misappropriation, focusing on the documentary evidence gathered and witness statements. It highlights how the prosecution built its case on department-prepared statements and records, while the defense refutes any suggestion of wrongdoing, pointing out the absence of direct testimony from individuals supposedly unpaid.", "held": "", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether misappropriation and falsification of accounts can be inferred solely from departmental documents and statements, and whether the trial court correctly invoked the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act without direct testimony from recipients or third parties.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Indian Evidence Act": "42. Learned Special Judge believed the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding statements that were prepared and concluded that under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to explain regarding the amounts that were withdrawn as such withdrawals and usage was to the exclusive knowledge of the accused." } }, "chunk_8": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution relies on compiled statements and departmental findings to show irregular withdrawals. The defense contends that no direct evidence links the accused to the alleged acts, arguing that departmental standards differ from criminal requirements and that the documents were never proven to be prepared or maintained by the accused.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The excerpt discusses allegations that certain individuals misappropriated funds by drawing or disbursing amounts in the names of others. Departmental inquiries were conducted based on numerous records, and those inquiries led to statements purportedly showing financial irregularities. The accused deny having prepared the underlying documents used to compile those statements. The matter proceeded to criminal trial, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a different standard than the departmental inquiry.", "final_status": "No final disposition is provided in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the document reviews how the prosecution relied on statements from a departmental inquiry to establish allegations of misappropriation. It questions whether those statements alone, without corroboration from direct evidence or witnesses, suffice to show guilt. The focus is also on whether the trial court was correct in invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thereby shifting the burden to the accused. References are made to Section 65 of the Evidence Act regarding the use of secondary evidence and to Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the accused\u2019s examination. No final judgment or disposition is stated.", "held": "No final holding is described in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether statements derived from departmental inquiries, without independent corroboration or proof of each underlying document, can establish misconduct or misappropriation. Whether the trial court could appropriately shift the burden of proof to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Cr.P.C., Section 313": "48. P.W.2 enquiry officer or for that matter, P.W.1, P.W.3 \nwho assisted P.W.2 during enquiry and all of them in turn \nwho had assisted Invest igating Officer/P.W.38 did not speak \nabout, they being experts or skilled in the examination of the \ndocuments which were examined during preparation of \nExs.P1 and P35. There were admittedly two almira hs filled \nwith documents which were examined and the gis t prepared \nunder Exs.P1 and P35. P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated that they \nhave any expertise in preparation of such statements. P.W.1 \nworked as Deputy Registrar of the Accounts Division, PW.2 \nretired as Director of Treasuries and Accounts, P.W.3, who is \nretired Professor in Physics. For argument sake assuming \nthat P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 had correctly prepared the statements \nwhich is the general result of examining several hundred \ndocuments and files, there is no evidence that such \ndocuments were prepared by the appellants herein. During \nthe course of cross- examination and also Section 313 Cr.P.C \nexamination, the accused denied the documents and its \ncorrectness. On the basis of which, Exs.P1 and P35 \nreflecting misappropriation were prepared.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 106": "43. In the present case, it is necessary to discuss regarding \nthe following aspects; i) Whether the statements that were \nprepared on the basis of the documents available in the \ndepartment can form basis to infer misappropriation and \nfalsificati on of accounts , without there being any independent \nwitnesses examined to support the allegation of drawing or \ndisbursing amounts in the names of individuals and Firms, \nor that such persons have not received amounts; ii) Whether \nsuch statements prepared on the basis of enormous \ndocuments that were examined by witnesses can form basis \nto conclude guilt in the absence of proving each and every \ndocument before the Court below; iii) Whether the learned \nSpecial Judge was right in invoking Section 106 of Indian \nEvidence Act on the basis of statements prepared by P.Ws.1 \nto 7 to convict the accused on the ground that the accused \nfailed to discharge burden shifted on to them . \n \n51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial \nburden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and \nthen burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, \nthe prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers \nwhich formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements \nshowing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were \nmaintained by the appellants herein.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 65": "46. For the sake of convenience, Section 65 of Indian \nEvidence Act is extracted hereunder: \n \u201c65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to \ndocument may be given. \n (a)\u2026. \n (b)\u2026. \n (c )\u2026 \n (d)\u2026. \n (e)\u2026. \n (f)\u2026. \n (g)When the originals consist of numerous accounts or \nother documents which cannot conveniently be examined \nin Court, and the fac t to be proved is the general result of \nthe whole collection. \n In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result \nof the documents by any person who has examined them, \nand who is skilled in the examination of such \ndocuments.\u201d \n \n47. Under Section 6 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, when \noriginal consists of numerous accounts or other documents \nwhich cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact \nto be proved is the general result of the whole collection, \nevidence may be given as to the general result of the \ndocuments by any person who has examined them and who \nis skilled in the examination of such documents." } }, "chunk_9": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution contended that the accused colluded with A1 by maintaining or preparing false documents and withdrawing funds through cheques. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove any direct involvement or entrustment of funds to the appellants and that no bank witnesses confirmed the accused encashed the cheques. The defense further maintained that mere suspicion could not shift the burden of proof onto the accused.", "cases_referred": [ "Balvir Singh vs State of Uttarakhand [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1261]", "R.Sai Bharathi vs J.Jayalalitha [AIR 2004 SC 892]", "State of Uttar Pradesh vs Sukhbasi [AIR 1985 SC 1224]", "Haricharan vs State of Rajasthan [AIR 1998 SC 244]", "Anthony D\u2019Souza vs State of Karnataka [(2003) 1 SCC 259]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The prosecution alleged that certain individuals (A4, A5, A7, A9, A10, and A11) were involved in misappropriating funds in collusion with A1, relying on various documents and statements (Exs.P1 and P35) supposedly prepared in the office. The trial court convicted them under charges of criminal misappropriation. On appeal, the appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence linking them to the alleged acts. No conclusive proof established that they prepared or maintained the incriminating accounts, and the appellate stage now reviews the correctness of the convictions.", "final_status": "set aside", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the court discussed the lack of evidence tying the appellants to misappropriation. The prosecution\u2019s reliance on certain documents and statements was deemed insufficient to prove that the accused actually maintained or prepared any incriminating records. The court applied precedents on burden of proof, noting that the prosecution failed to show direct links to withdrawals or entrustment. As a result, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.", "held": "The court held that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of entrustment and direct involvement by the appellants. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. Their bail bonds were discharged, and no misappropriation was established against them.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether there was sufficient proof of entrustment and misappropriation by the accused, and whether the prosecution discharged its burden under the Evidence Act to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "IPC Section 409": "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c ) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise.", "Indian Evidence Act Section 106": "51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and then burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers which formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements showing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were maintained by the appellants herein.", "Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(c)": "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c ) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise." } } }, "counsels": [ "Sri A.Dattanand (for Appellants)", "Sri S.Someshwar Rao (for Appellants)", "Sri L.N.Bhadri Raju (for Appellants)", "Sri C.Sharan Reddy (for Appellants)", "Sri Sridhar Chikyala (Special Public Prosecutor for ACB)" ], "delivered_date": "16.04.2024", "facts": "The Registrar of Osmania University lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that employees of the University\u2019s printing press misappropriated funds by inflating bills for materials, issuing unauthorized cheques, and paying overtime allowances without proper justification. An FIR was filed in 1994 following a departmental investigation. Multiple accused were charged and some died during the trial, causing partial abatement of proceedings. The Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases convicted certain accused for criminal misconduct and misappropriation. The convictions were challenged on appeal, where the sufficiency of documentary evidence, departmental inquiries, and direct proof of each accused\u2019s role became central issues. Ultimately, the appellate court examined whether the prosecution had established entrustment and personal involvement beyond reasonable doubt.", "final_status": "Appeals allowed for the accused except one appeal dismissed as abated.", "first_party": [ "1. C.Bala Malleshwar Rao", "2. G.Chandrasekhar", "3. Syed Anwar Hussain", "4. G.Damodar", "5. K.L.Rama Rao", "6. V.Satyanarayana and another" ], "grouped_statutes": { "IPC": [ "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC." ], "IPC Section 409": [ "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c ) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise." ], "Indian Evidence Act": [ "42. Learned Special Judge believed the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding statements that were prepared and concluded that under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to explain regarding the amounts that were withdrawn as such withdrawals and usage was to the exclusive knowledge of the accused." ], "Indian Evidence Act Section 106": [ "51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and then burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers which formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements showing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were maintained by the appellants herein." ], "Indian Evidence Act, Section 106": [ "43. In the present case, it is necessary to discuss regarding \nthe following aspects; i) Whether the statements that were \nprepared on the basis of the documents available in the \ndepartment can form basis to infer misappropriation and \nfalsificati on of accounts , without there being any independent \nwitnesses examined to support the allegation of drawing or \ndisbursing amounts in the names of individuals and Firms, \nor that such persons have not received amounts; ii) Whether \nsuch statements prepared on the basis of enormous \ndocuments that were examined by witnesses can form basis \nto conclude guilt in the absence of proving each and every \ndocument before the Court below; iii) Whether the learned \nSpecial Judge was right in invoking Section 106 of Indian \nEvidence Act on the basis of statements prepared by P.Ws.1 \nto 7 to convict the accused on the ground that the accused \nfailed to discharge burden shifted on to them . \n \n51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial \nburden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and \nthen burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, \nthe prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers \nwhich formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements \nshowing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were \nmaintained by the appellants herein." ], "Indian Evidence Act, Section 65": [ "46. For the sake of convenience, Section 65 of Indian \nEvidence Act is extracted hereunder: \n \u201c65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to \ndocument may be given. \n (a)\u2026. \n (b)\u2026. \n (c )\u2026 \n (d)\u2026. \n (e)\u2026. \n (f)\u2026. \n (g)When the originals consist of numerous accounts or \nother documents which cannot conveniently be examined \nin Court, and the fac t to be proved is the general result of \nthe whole collection. \n In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result \nof the documents by any person who has examined them, \nand who is skilled in the examination of such \ndocuments.\u201d \n \n47. Under Section 6 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, when \noriginal consists of numerous accounts or other documents \nwhich cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact \nto be proved is the general result of the whole collection, \nevidence may be given as to the general result of the \ndocuments by any person who has examined them and who \nis skilled in the examination of such documents." ], "Indian Penal Code, 1860": [ "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self -cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/ - was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps w as not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self -cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/ - was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps w as misappropriated , punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC .\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000 -26ps and Rs.4,83,032 -50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n6) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have entered into criminal conspiracy while discharging their duties and misappropriated the amounts to an extent of Rs,17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404.18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000.26ps and Rs.4,83,032.50 ps for purchase of printing material, punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC.\n\n7) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have falsified accounts willfully with an intention to defraud the institution and caused wrongful loss to the printing press, Osmania University, Hyderabad to an extent of Rs,17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404.18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000.26ps and Rs.4,83,032.50 ps, punishable under Section 477 -A IPC r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Learned Special Judge convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC, Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC, Section 277- A r/w 120- B IPC." ], "Prevention of Corruption Act": [ "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC." ], "Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(c)": [ "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c ) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise." ], "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": [ "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self -cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/ - was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps w as not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self -cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/ - was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps w as misappropriated , punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC .\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404 -18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000 -26ps and Rs.4,83,032 -50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120 -B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Learned Special Judge convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC, Section 409 r/w 120 -B IPC, Section 277- A r/w 120- B IPC." ] }, "held": "The appellate court determined that the prosecution did not prove entrustment or direct involvement for most accused and set aside their convictions, citing insufficient evidence and the need for a clear nexus between withdrawals and personal gain. The single appeal involving a deceased accused was dismissed as abated. The court\u2019s ruling underscored the higher burden of proof required in criminal proceedings, particularly where documentation stems from administrative inquiries.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether funds were misappropriated through unauthorized allowances and inflated procurements", "whether departmental inquiries alone sufficed to prove criminal misconduct", "whether burden of proof could shift to the accused under Indian Evidence Act provisions", "whether each accused bore direct responsibility or if only the primary officer in charge should have been held liable", "whether proof of entrustment and misappropriation was established beyond reasonable doubt", "whether incomplete records and missing documents required acquittal." ], "location": "Hyderabad", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor", "2. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor", "3. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor", "4. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor", "5. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor", "6. The State of Telangana ACB, City Range, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor" ], "statutes": { "Cr.P.C., Section 313": "48. P.W.2 enquiry officer or for that matter, P.W.1, P.W.3 who assisted P.W.2 during enquiry and all of them in turn who had assisted Investigating Officer/P.W.38 did not speak about, they being experts or skilled in the examination of the documents which were examined during preparation of Exs.P1 and P35. There were admittedly two almirahs filled with documents which were examined and the gist prepared under Exs.P1 and P35. P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated that they have any expertise in preparation of such statements. P.W.1 worked as Deputy Registrar of the Accounts Division, PW.2 retired as Director of Treasuries and Accounts, P.W.3 retired Professor in Physics. For argument sake assuming that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 had correctly prepared the statements which is the general result of examining several hundred documents and files, there is no evidence that such documents were prepared by the appellants herein. During the course of cross-examination and also Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the accused denied the documents and their correctness. On the basis of which, Exs.P1 and P35 reflecting misappropriation were prepared.", "IPC": "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.", "IPC Section 409": "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c ) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise.", "Indian Evidence Act": "42. Learned Special Judge believed the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding statements that were prepared and concluded that under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused to explain regarding the amounts that were withdrawn as such withdrawals and usage was to the exclusive knowledge of the accused.", "Indian Evidence Act Section 106": "51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and then burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers which formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements showing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were maintained by the appellants herein.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 106": "43. In the present case, it is necessary to discuss regarding the following aspects; i) Whether the statements that were prepared on the basis of the documents available in the department can form basis to infer misappropriation and falsification of accounts, without there being any independent witnesses examined to support the allegation of drawing or disbursing amounts in the names of individuals and Firms, or that such persons have not received amounts; ii) Whether such statements prepared on the basis of enormous documents that were examined by witnesses can form basis to conclude guilt in the absence of proving each and every document before the Court below; iii) Whether the learned Special Judge was right in invoking Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act on the basis of statements prepared by P.Ws.1 to 7 to convict the accused on the ground that the accused failed to discharge burden shifted on to them.\n\n51. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and then burden shifts on to the accused. As already discussed, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that files and registers which formed basis to prepare Exs.P1 and P35 statements showing misappropriation, were admitted or that they were maintained by the appellants herein.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 65": "46. For the sake of convenience, Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereunder:\n\n\u201c65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given.\n(a) \u2026\n(b) \u2026\n(c) \u2026\n(d) \u2026\n(e) \u2026\n(f) \u2026\n(g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.\n\nIn case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.\u201d\n\n47. Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, when originals consist of numerous accounts or documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection, evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.", "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self-cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/- was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404-18 ps was not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self-cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/- was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps was misappropriated, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404-18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000-26ps and Rs.4,83,032-50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n6) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have entered into criminal conspiracy while discharging their duties and misappropriated the amounts to an extent of Rs,17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404.18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000.26ps and Rs.4,83,032.50 ps for purchase of printing material, punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC.\n\n7) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 have falsified accounts willfully with an intention to defraud the institution and caused wrongful loss to the printing press, Osmania University, Hyderabad, punishable under Section 477-A IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked.", "Prevention of Corruption Act": "COMMON JUDGMENT:\n1. These Criminal Appeals are filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2000 dated 15.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.", "Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(c)": "53. Section 13(c) of the Act is akin to Section 409 of IPC. Both under Section 13(c) of PC Act and Section 409 of IPC, the sine qua non to establish the offence of misappropriation is to prove entrustment. The factum of entrustment to the appellants herein are assumptions on the basis of the withdrawals from Banks and payments made by A1 through cheques. Admittedly, self-cheques were drawn and signed by A1. Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise.", "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "2) A1, for the very same orders issued self-cheques and third party cheques to an extent of Rs.54,71,964.18ps to A2 , A3, A7 to A11, who have encashed the cheques. It was shown that printing material worth Rs.36,55,560/- was purchased. However, the remaining amount of Rs.18,16,404-18 ps was not accounted, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n3) A1 along with A2 and A4 purchased printing material including stationery to an extent of Rs.1,18,10,0000.26ps at exorbitant rates, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n4) A1 has issued self-cheques amounting to Rs.5,08,502.50ps and A2, A5 and A6 encashed the said cheques. An amount of Rs.25,470/- was given for private orders and the remaining amount of Rs.4,83,032.50 ps was misappropriated, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n5) A1, A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.17,86,003.84 ps, Rs.18,16,404-18 ps, Rs.1,18,10,000-26ps and Rs.4,83,032-50ps, violating financial limits, punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.\n\n9. The ACB, during the course of investigation, having collected documents and examining witnesses filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.\n\n10. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 37 and marked Exs.P1 to P268. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Learned Special Judge convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(i) \u0026 (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC, Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC, Section 477-A r/w 120-B IPC." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "IPC Section 409": "\u2014 Criminal breach of trust \u2014 Requirement of entrustment under Section 409 IPC \u2014 Self-cheques drawn and signed by A1 alone \u2014 No direct evidence from Bank to prove co-accused withdrew funds or personally misappropriated amounts \u2014 Departmental findings alone insufficient to establish criminal culpability \u2014 Burden of proof in criminal proceedings not met \u2014 Convictions set aside except for abated appeal.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 106": "\u2014 Section 106 \u2014 Burden of Proof \u2014 Mere departmental findings insufficient to shift burden to accused \u2014 Prosecution must establish entrustment, misappropriation, and personal involvement beyond administrative inquiries \u2014 Absence of direct or bank testimony to prove wrongful withdrawals \u2014 Suspicion cannot replace concrete proof \u2014 Convictions set aside for most accused, with one appeal abated.", "Indian Evidence Act, Section 65": "\u2014 Secondary Evidence \u2014 Voluminous Documents \u2014 Section 65 permits secondary evidence of general result when originals are too numerous for convenient examination \u2014 Departmental inquiries alone insufficient to establish criminal culpability \u2014 Prosecution must prove direct nexus between alleged misappropriation and accused \u2014 Absence of direct documentary proof or bank testimony fails to shift burden of proof \u2014 Skilled person\u2019s summary admissible, but must be corroborated by concrete evidence \u2014 Convictions set aside for lack of entrustment and personal involvement except where appeal was abated.", "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "\u2014 Criminal Conspiracy and Misappropriation of Funds \u2014 Departmental inquiry alone not conclusive for criminal misconduct or misappropriation \u2014 Inflated bills, unauthorized cheques, questionable records at University press \u2014 Burden of establishing entrustment and personal involvement beyond reasonable doubt not met \u2014 Absence of crucial bank testimony; no direct evidence of personal gain for most accused \u2014 Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal proceedings \u2014 Convictions under Sections 409, 477-A, 120-B set aside except where appeal abated \u2014 Higher standard of proof reaffirmed.", "Prevention of Corruption Act Section 13(c)": "\u2014 Offence of Misappropriation under Section 13(c) \u2014 Akin to Section 409 IPC \u2014 Sine qua non: Proof of Entrustment \u2014 Prosecution\u2019s failure to produce bank witnesses linking appellants to actual withdrawals \u2014 Departmental inquiries alone held insufficient to establish criminal misconduct \u2014 Convictions set aside except for appeal abated.", "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "\u2014 Offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(i)\u0026(ii) r/w 13(2) of PC Act \u2014 Criminal misconduct, alleged misappropriation through inflated bills, unauthorized cheques, and questionable overtime allowances \u2014 Departmental inquiry and administrative findings alone not conclusive \u2014 Prosecution must prove entrustment, direct involvement, and personal gain beyond reasonable doubt \u2014 Absence of bank testimony weakened linkage to accused \u2014 Insufficient proof for most accused; convictions set aside (one appeal abated) \u2014 Higher burden of proof in criminal proceedings emphasized." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "Multiple appeals arose from allegations of financial misappropriation at Osmania University\u2019s printing press, where A1 and others allegedly overstated overtime allowances, inflated bills for printing materials, and maintained questionable records. Departmental inquiries found irregularities and led to convictions under corruption and penal statutes. On appeal, the court determined that the prosecution had not conclusively proven direct involvement or entrustment for most accused, pointing to a lack of bank testimony and insufficient proof linking them to claimed withdrawals. The court set aside the convictions, except for one appeal dismissed as abated, and concluded that criminal culpability could not rest solely on administrative findings without firm evidence of personal wrongdoing." } }