Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Ahatmam on 14 November, 2025
1 / 15
IN THE COURT OF MS. AKANSHA GAUTAM, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
DLSE020056992015
FIR No.625/2014
PS. OIA
U/s. 408/420 IPC
STATE VS MOHD. AHATMAN.
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 224/2/15
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.09.2015
C. NAME OF THE : Sanjeev Singh
COMPLAINANT S/o Amarjeet Singh
D. NAME OF THE : Mohd. Ahatmam,
ACCUSED S/o Mohd. Ikram
E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED
OF : U/s 408/420 IPC
F. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
G. DATE OF FINAL
ARGUMENTS : 25.09.2025
H. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 14.11.2025
I. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
A. BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the instant case, as per the complaint Millennium Automation & Systems Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ' MASL') filed a complaint against accused Mr. Mohd. Ahatman, for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and falsification of accounts. He was appointed Digitally signed by FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:19:48 +0530 2 / 15 on 26 June 2012 as a junior accountant and was made responsible for company's finances and accounting. On 8 August 2014, at the time of audit, it revealed that the alleged accused had used company funds for paying his personal telephone bills in the sum of Rs.5,000. He also misappropriated ₹18,000 received from a company sales assistant, Mr. Saurav Yadav, by not entering it in the company's cash book. He used company funds of Rs. 60,000 to buy an Apple iPhone 5S (16GB) and Go Mobile headphones for personal use. Further he did not return company property such as a BlackBerry phone, mobile tablet, cheque books, and stationery. When the accused was confronted, he admitted to the allegations. Then, he stopped coming to office and became untraceable, later on, it was found that he had fled to Saharanpur, U.P. On these facts, complainant company prayed for registration of FIR against the accused.
B. STAGE OF COGNIZANCE
2. The present FIR under section 406 and 420 IPC for cheating, breach of trust, and falsification of accounts was registered in Police Station Okhla Industrial Area on 23.08.2014. Investigation was conducted qua the said offences and chargesheet was filed in Court for the offences under section 408/420 IPC on 15.09.2015. The Court took cognizance of the said offences against the accused on the same day and copies of chargesheet was also supplied to the accused on the same day as he was present in Court.
C. CHARGEAND PROCEEDINGS U/s 294 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, on 04.05.2017 after hearing arguments on the point of charge and considering the corroboration of the version of the complainant in the statement, charge u/s 408 IPC was framed against the accused Mohd. Ahatmam. Accused pleaded not guilty and the case was FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:19:51 +0530 3 / 15 put for prosecution evidence. In view of statement made by accused U/s 294 Cr.P.C. on 04.03.2025, DO/ SI Mahender Singh was dropped from the list of witnesses.
D. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, case was put for prosecution evidence PW Sanjeev Singh was examined as PW1, PW Komal was examined as PW-2, PW Saurabh Yadav was examined as PW-3, PW Sunil Yadav was examined as PW-4, PW Harleen Kaur Jawanda was examined as PW-5, PW Inspector Parveen Kumar was examined as PW-6, PW ASI Padam Singh was examined as PW-7, PW Surender Kumar was examined as PW-8, PW Retd. SI Bhojraj Singh, was examined as PW-9 and PW Inspector Kamal Kumar was examined as PW-10. Their examination is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. PW Subhash Mishra did not appear in Court despite repeated issuance of summons; accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses on 10.07.2023.
E. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
5. After the conclusion of material prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded on 04.03.2025. Accused Mohd. Ahatmam stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant company to save the skin of other employees particularly in accounts department. Other than him, Sanjeev Singh, Ms. Komal, Bhawna and Gajender worked in accounts department to maintain accounts. Company Director threatened him to give confessional statement or face the consequences and implication in false case. He was forced for confessional statements and also signed on those statements. He has not committed any acts amounting to embezzlement of company's fund. He had already returned allegedly misappropriated Digitally FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:19:54 +0530 4 / 15 mobile phone i.e iPhone and blackbery phone.
F. FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. Final arguments were addressed, Ld. APP for the state contended that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses corroborates with each other and hence accused is liable to be convicted, further that the testimony of the complainant is sufficient enough and proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the accused contends that there is no direct evidence regarding the commission of criminal breach of trust, further that the complainant has not been able to produce any documentary evidence, there were several persons responsible for the financial duties of the company and onus of any wrongdoing cannot be shifted on a junior accountant, even all the material witnesses i.e. members of financing team were not cited as witnesses and examined by the prosecution. Thus, in light of these facts it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
G. DISCUSSION OF LAW, EVIDENCE AND DECISION THEREON.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and also carefully gone through the material available on record. The general principle of criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proving the guilt is on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to discharge this burden beyond reasonable doubt. The strict burden of proof is casted on the prosecution due to the principle that hundred guilty may go unpunished FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:19:57 +0530 5 / 15 but one innocent should not be wrongly convicted.
H. INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND REASONING
9. Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust and states that " whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits, criminal breach of trust".
Coming to the offence of criminal misappropriation under Section 406 IPC, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ms. Anu Gill v. State and another 2001 V AD (Delhi)411:
"To constitute the offence under section 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant".
Section 408 IPC punishes whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property.
Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:00 +0530 FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC 6 / 15
10. The ingredients of offence under section 408 IPC are as follows:
The accused must be a clerk or servant;
The accused must be entrusted with property/dominion over property in such capacity;
The accused must dishonestly misappropriate/convert the property to his own use or dishonestly use/dispose of the property in violation of any direction of law or legal contract or wilfully suffer any other person to do so.
11. The existence of an employment relationship and the entrustment of property due to that relationship is sine qua non of the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 408 IPC. In the instant case, there is no doubt as to the existence of such relationship as the accused was admittedly employed at MASL as a junior accountant and he deposed as to the same in his testimony as well. Further, even his appointment letter has been brought on record as Ex.PW-5/A. The fact that the duties of the accused also entailed receiving cash and depositing the same in the bank account of MASL, clearing bills, making entries in cashbook of the company is also not disputed though it is stated by the accused that the said duty was performed turn-by-turn by five persons i.e., Sanjeev Singh, Komal, Bhawna, Gajender and the accused.
12. Therefore, the only question to be answered is whether the accused herein committed criminal breach of trust in such capacity. Looking in brief the allegations raised against the accused are:
Akhansha Gautam Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2025.11.14 16:20:03 +0530 FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC 7 / 15 I. Fraudulently paid two of his personal Airtel Mobile bills for the month of July 2014 in the sum of Rs.3692/- and Rs.3340/- from company accounts.
II. Got Rs.5000/- released from company's account for his personal use.
III. Saurav Yadav, Sales Assistant had deposited cash of Rs.18,000/-
with the accused on behalf of the company on 28.05.2014, but the accused did not show the said entry in company's cashbook. Amount was not deposited in company's account. IV. On 16.08.2014, it was found that accused had misused company's fund for purchase of Apple iPhone 5S 16 GB for his personal use alongwith purchase of 'Go mobile' headphone. He paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- through cheque drawn on company's account. Company has filed copy of the invoice given to them by the vendor for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and vendor also informed that cash of Rs.10,000/- was paid by accused.
V. He did not deposit company's property i.e. Blackberry mobile phone worth Rs.8950/- and one mobile tablet worth Rs.8500/-. This Court shall deal with each of the allegation separately, in light of totality of facts and circumstances:
I. Allegation qua payment of airtel bill
13. It has been mentioned in the complaint on record as Ex.PW-1/A that accused paid two of his personal airtel mobile bills for July 2014 in the sum of Rs.3692/- and Rs.3340/- from company's accounts. The same has also been testified by the said witness in his examination in chief. However, in order to prove the said allegation, confession of accused recorded by the complainant company itself is on record. The veracity of the same has been dealt with in paragraph number Digitally signed by FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Gautam Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:06 +0530 8 / 15
14. Statement of the MASL's account with Oriental Bank of Commerce has been brought on record as Ex.PW-1/C. Relevant entry is point 16 of page number 1 of the statement, which shows withdrawal of cash of Rs.3340/- by deposit of cheque no.25766 on 12.07.2014. There is no proof of withdrawal of Rs.3692/-. Firstly, it has not been proven by the prosecution that the accused was the signing authority for cheques of the company nor it has been proven that the accused received the said amount after withdrawal of cash and thirdly, this has not been proven by the prosecution that this withdrawn amount was put to use for payment of his airtel bills by the accused, there are no bill of mobile phone or invoice on record, which shows payment from company's account. Even PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that signature on the cheque for the alleged payment were done by the Director. Mere assertions by complainant in offence of breach of trust cannot take the place of documentary proof.
II. Accused got Rs.5000/- released from company's account for his personal use.
14. It has been mentioned in the complaint on record as Ex.PW-1/A that accused also got released Rs.5000/- in cash from the company's accounts for his personal use. PW-1 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that Rs.5000/- was withdrawn three months back, was also lying with him. PW-2/ Ms. Komal has deposed that accused had withdrawn Rs.5000/- as per the account book of the company which was not used and not returned back initially. Both the allegations are materially different in nature. In the original complaint, the allegation is accused got the amount released for misappropriating the same, however PW-1 has deposed that he misappropriated the amount already withdrawn three months back. Even the bank statement showing withdrawal of Digitally signed by Akhansha FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:09 +0530 9 / 15 Rs.5000/- is not on record. In order to prove the said allegation, there is nothing on record except a confessional statement of accused recorded by the company itself. In his statement recorded under section 281 Cr.P.C. read with section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that the company Director threatened him to give confessional statement or face consequences and be implicated in false cases. He was forced for the confessional statements and also signed on the said statement. There is nothing on record to prove the veracity of the said statement. Further, this statement has also not been exhibited or marked during evidence recording. The High Court of Delhi in Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 IIAD Delhi 189, has elucidated this practice of marking of exhibits as, any document filed by either party passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. First stage is when the documents are filed by either party in the Court. These documents though on file, do not become part of the judicial record. The second stage is when the documents are tendered or produced in evidence by a party and the court admits the documents in evidence. A document admitted in evidence becomes a part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidence. The third stage is the documents which are held "proved, not proved or disproved" when the court is called upon to apply its judicial mind by reference to Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Usually, this stage arrives at the final hearing of the case or proceeding. The said principle is applicable for the confessional statement allegedly recorded by the company of the accused. placed on record by both the parties.
III. Accused misused a sum of Rs.18,000/- deposited by one Saurav Yadav
15. It has been mentioned in the complaint on record as Ex.PW-1/A that after conducting confidential internal enquiry, it was FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Date:
Gautam 2025.11.14 16:20:12 +0530 10 / 15 revealed that one of the employees MASL/ Saurav Yadav, Sales Assistant had deposited a sum of Rs.18,000/- received by him on behalf of the company with the accused on 28.05.2014 upon being informed that he will carry out the relevant entry in the company's cashbook. Neither the said amount was deposited in the company's account nor made the relevant entry in company's cashbook. Firstly, the prosecution has never brought on record any participants of the confidential internal enquiry or its report from where the said allegations were unearthed. Even the basis for discovering the said allegation has not been mentioned. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that in May 2014, Saurabh Yadav gave Rs.18,000/- to accused which was not deposited till 08.08.2014. It has not been clarified in both for what purpose Saurav Yadav collected the sum of Rs.18,000/- for the company which he allegedly gave to the accused, making the entire allegation vague and ambiguous. For the first time, PW-3/ Saurabh Yadav in his examination-in-chief conducted on 28.08.2018 has said that he collected payment of Rs.18,000/- from one client of the company. Again, he does not clarify the name of the client and the job for which money was collected or brings any record of receipt of Rs.18,000/- from the client which he subsequently hands over to the accused. When the company is alleging breach of trust on part of the accused, it must prove the existence of property, which the accused converts to his own use.
IV. Purchase of apple iPhone and mobile headphone using company's funds by accused.
16. In the original complaint filed by PW-1/ Sanjeev Singh, it has been mentioned that on 16.08.2014, it was found that accused had misused company's fund for purchase of Apple iPhone 5S 16 GB for his personal sue alongwith purchase of 'Go mobile' headphone from M/S Digitally signed by Akhansha FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:16 +0530 11 / 15 MG Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. He paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- through cheque drawn on company's account. Company has filed copy of the invoice given to them by the vendor for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and vendor also informed that cash of Rs.10,000/- was paid by accused. PW-1 has specified the exact date of purchase in his testimony as 10.07.2014 and further deposed that mobile bill amount was Rs.50,000/- and he had taken Rs.10,000/- as cash refund from the shopkeeper against payment of Rs.60,000/- from company's account. This testimony is in direct contradiction to the original complaint on two grounds, firstly, it was specified by Sh. Sanjeev Singh himself that Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash however in his testimony, he is saying Rs.60,000/- has been paid from company's account. Secondly, in the original complaint, the sum of Rs.10,000/- has been mentioned, was used for purchase of headphones whereas before the Court, the witness is stating that he took refund of Rs.10,000/- as cash from the shopkeeper against payment of Rs.60,000/-. PW-2/ Komal has clarified in her examination in chief that the information qua receipt of Rs.10,000/- was informed by the vendor. There is no explanation offered why the vendor would engage in this illegal transaction and even the vendor has not been cited as a witness to prove the same. The account statement from 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014 on record as Ex.PW-1/C from A to A1 shows transaction of withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- from cheque no.25755/- at point B on 09.07.2014. As stated earlier, nowhere the prosecution has proven accused had the power to be signatory for issuance of cheques or was handed over cheques by the company for withdrawal of its money. This statement also does not show that the amount of Rs.60,000/- was given to MG Mobile India Pvt. Ltd for purchase of both articles. A retail invoice dated 10.07.2014 which is neither exhibited nor marked was issued by MG Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. showing purchase of iPhone 5S 16GB silver and go mobile headphone pink for Rs.50,000/- total respectively by the accused. Receipt of FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Akhansha Date:
Gautam 2025.11.14
16:20:19
+0530
12 / 15
Rs.10,000/- by this vendor is also not proven as he has not brought to the stand. PW-2/ Ms. Komal who is internal auditor of the complainant company has accepted the fact that the iPhone was purchased by the accused with the consent of the Director, she has further admitted that the Director was the signatory of the cheque from which the mobile phone was purchased. Later, in voluntary, she has deposed that the amount of purchase was not correctly mentioned in the cheque, which is not the allegation against the accused. There are multiple discrepancies in the statement of prosecution story, making it difficult to rely upon their testimony.
V. Accused did not deposit company's property
17. In the original complaint, it has been alleged that accused did not deposit company's property i.e. Blackberry mobile phone worth Rs.8950/- and one mobile tablet worth Rs.8500/- which he misappropriated for his own use. It has been further alleged that he failed to return company's Identity card issued to him, company's cheque books and stationery (including letterheads) which he might have misused. To prove the allegations, the complainant has brought on record copy of mo- bile bills issued to MASL on 08.04.2013 where the company purchased eight Blackberry handsets for its employees. It has been placed on record as Ex.PW-1/D. List of the employees who have been handed over the phone is also annexed with it, which mentions the name of the accused. The seizure memo of ID card of accused is on record as Ex.PW-7/A and of mobile phone is on record as Ex.PW-7/B. The said allegations have not been mentioned by PW-1 in his deposition before the Court, only when case property i.e. blackberry handset was taken out, he identified it. He further deposed that accused was asked about the mobile phone he had Digitally signed by FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPCAkhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:22 +0530 13 / 15 purchased, the accused said that the mobile was deposited by him when he left the office. The mobile was found to be active in area of Saharan- pur which is native place of accused. The CDR/ CAF of the said mobile was obtained, which showed his location as Saharanpur. The first IO/ In- spector Parveen Kumar during his examination-in-chief has deposed that IMEI number of iPhone mobile phone was put on surveillance and he ob- tained relevant call details/ IMEI search report. Nodal Officer on behalf of Vodafone Idea Pvt. Ltd. came to Court as witness number 8 and brought the CAF/ CDR of mobile number pf the accused which is on record as Ex.PW-8/B and Ex.PW-8/C. This does not prove that the ac- cused kept the blackberry handset with him and went to his village. It only shows location of his phone number, sim can be inserted in any handset and the location will be reflected as such. This part of testimony of PW-1 is also a grey area as he himself has alleged that the accused pur- chased iPhone and blackberry was purchased by company and then handed it to employees. It becomes confusing as to which mobile phone the witness is deposing about in Court on 15.02.2023. Further, there is nothing clear as to when the complainant demanded the mobile phone from the accused and when he refused to return the same. For the remain- ing articles, there are no allegations in testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding demand and refusal of accused to return the said articles or even bare mention of the existence of the said articles in any of the testi- mony, be it ID card, stationary or mobile tablet.
There are certain deficiencies that have emerged from the prosecution's case:
18. In the original complaint filed by PW-1/ Sanjeev Singh, it has been mentioned that during the course of duties, accused was made in charge of Finance and Auditing activities of the company, which can be the reason for affixing the blame for financial dubiousness. However, Digitally signed by FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 16:20:25 +0530 14 / 15 PW-1 has admitted during cross-examination that he was at the post of finance and accounts manager, apart from him, Ms. Bhawna, Ms. Komal and accused were working in finance and accounts. Ms. Komal was working as internal auditor, who deposed before the Court. As has been rightly pointed out by the accused, Bhawna was neither made a witness nor came to Court. PW-1 has also admitted that he does not remember if the accused was promoted to the post of Incharge of finance and audit activities. The duty/ work of a junior accountant would be different from that of Incharge of Finance and Audit activities, only proof of appointment of accused as junior accountant is on record, which does not clarify on his exact duties. It has not been shown by the prosecution how the accused had all the responsibilities of receipt of cash, withdrawal of cheque money and what was the role of the remaining team members or in charge. When specifically questioned that accounting activities, account transactions, passing of bills/ invoices were cleared after scrutiny from higher officials of the company, PW-1 has only denied the same which is in direct contradiction to testimony of PW-2 who has accepted that the same are put to higher officials but petty expenses were put by accused directly to the Director. The definition of what was petty amount for the company as there is a misappropriated sum of Rs.3340 on one hand versus a sum of Rs.60000/-, has not been specified. No specific role of the senior officials or that of the accused has been clarified. PW-2/ Komal has admitted that the accounts of company were in access of herself, PW-1, accused and some others whose name she does not recall, then the basis for affixing the responsibility for the fraudulent transactions solely on the accused has not been duly explained by the prosecution, especially when his designation is much junior and nature of duties itself is unclear.
Akhansha Gautam Digitally signed by Akhansha Gautam Date: 2025.11.14 FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC 16:20:28 +0530 15 / 15
19. In the original complaint filed by PW-1/ Sanjeev Singh, it has been mentioned that during some anomalies were discovered by the company's CA/ Ms. Komal on 08.08.2014 during internal audit. Further, confidential internal enquiry was also conducted upon fraudulent nature of accused being discovered. There is no documentation placed on record to prove that any internal audit or enquiry was conducted by the company. Despite Ms. Komal being the company's Chartered Accountant, there is neither any audit report nor any enquiry report filed during investigation or during trial.
In conclusion this court is of the opinion that considering the totality of circumstances the version of the complainant remains unproved as complainant is not direct witness to the commission of breach of trust and neither the complainant has placed on record any document for substantiating his allegation for misappropriation.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Mohd. Ahatman is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 408 IPC.
Pronounced in the open court on 14.11.2025. Judgment contains total 16 pages, each signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by Akhansha Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date:
2025.11.14 (AKANSHA GAUTAM) 16:20:32 +0530 JMFC-02/SE/Saket/ND 14.11.2025 FIR No.625/2014 State versus Mohd. Ahatman U/S 408 IPC