Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. EBBANI AGGARWAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 532635/2016
FIR No.: 299/2011
P.S.: North Rohini
State Vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary
U/s. 408 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
STATE
VERSUS
KRISHAN KANHIYA CHAUDHRY
S/o Sh. Ganesh Chaudhry
R/o House of Arjun Mishra, 25 Feet Road
Back side of Shiv Mandir, Mukundpur
Delhi
Date of institution of case : 04.06.2012
Date of reserving the judgment : 13.06.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.07.2025
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNW020016282012
Date of Commission of Offence 13.10.2011
Name of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal
Name of the accused Krishan Kanhiya
Chaudhry
Offence complained or proved Section 408 of Indian
Penal Code, 1890
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
EBBANI
State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini AGGARWAL
Page No. 1 of 18
Digitally signed by
EBBANI
AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.07.07
15:24:22 +0530
BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
1. Facts, in brief, as alleged by the prosecution are that ac- cused is the employee of complainant and on 13.10.2011, at around 06:00 PM, at house of complainant, complainant had given a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused which was to be delivered by accused to his factory/office at Plot No. 37, Badli Village, Delhi. The complainant had also given the vespa/scooter of his company to accused for this purpose, however, accused never reached the factory/office and instead, complainant was neither able to contact the accused nor the accused was found at his house. Thus, it has been alleged that accused has committed an offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the in- stant charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC was filed against the accused. There- after, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned.
3. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge sheet and an- nexed documents was supplied to the accused in compli- ance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.").
4. Prima facie case was made out against the accused Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhry and charge for commission of an of- fence under Section 408 of IPC was framed against the ac- cused on 02.07.2012 to which the accused pleaded not Digitally signed by State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 Page No. 2 of 18 15:24:32 +0530 guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal who is the complainant, PW-2 Ms. Alpana Banerjee who was running the placement agency through which accused was referred to the complainant and PW-3 to PW-8 are either police witnesses or formal witnesses. The entire case of prosecution rests upon testimony of PW- 1 Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, PW-2 Ms. Alpana Banerjee and PW-7 SI Manoj Sahrawat who is the first IO who had conducted the investigation and therefore, testimonies of these aforementioned witnesses is being briefly discussed.
6. PW-1, Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal (complainant), has deposed that he is running a business of trading of plastic films for which he has a godown at Plot No. 37, Opposite MCD Health Centre, Badli Village, Delhi-42 and further that accused (correctly identified by witness in Court) was working for him as accountant as well as for field work since August, 2011 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. PW-1 further deposed that on 13.10.2011, in between 5:00 to 6:00 PM, he had entrusted Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to accused for handing over the same to his brother and further that he had also entrusted his scooter bearing number DL-8SY-3840 to accused for the said purpose. PW-1 further deposed that accused left his house with the cash and scooter and thereafter, at around 06:30 PM, he Digitally signed by State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 3 of 182025.07.07 15:24:50 +0530 got a phone call from his brother that accused had still not reached their godown. PW-1 further deposed that he rushed to the godown, tried to search the accused, made a phone call at the mobile number of accused which was found to be switched off and further that he also went to the address of accused but the same was found to be a plot. PW-1 further deposed that he lodged a complaint Ex. PW- 1/A on 13.10.2011, present FIR was registered and during course of investigation, he furnished the following documents which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B:
(i) Ex. P-1: Photocopy of RC of his scooter.
(ii) Ex. P-2: Copy of retail invoice showing cash in hand on date of incident.
(iii) Ex. P-3: Copy of placement bill through which accused was hired.
(iv) Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5: Copy of appointment letter
(v) Ex. P-6: Copy of resume of accused provided by placement agency.
7. PW-1 has further deposed that after the arrest of accused, police informed him, he got the scooter recovered from accused released on superdari and further cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- was never recovered. PW-1 has correctly identified the scooter DL-8SY-3840 through photographs Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-10.
8. Thereafter, PW-1, was duly cross-examined on behalf of EBBANI AGGARWAL accused wherein he has deposed that he had approached Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.07 15:24:59 +0530 State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 4 of 18 placement agency namely Alsachi Placement Services telephonically and the accused was recruited through the said agency. PW-1 has further deposed that his staff comes to his house as he carries out business activities from his home office and that he does not keep any plastic films in which he is dealing in his business at his home office. PW- 1 has further deposed that he sometimes generates invoices at his home office and the serial number does not change as he is using only laptop for generating invoices and the invoices do not mention the time when they are generated and only contain the date. PW-1 has further deposed that retail invoice Ex. P-2 was generated at his home, he cannot tell the exact time when it was generated, however, it was somewhere between 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM and further that the said invoice was issued for a walk-in customer who had approached his godown and the staff at the godown had asked the customer to come to his residence. PW-1 again said, the walk-in customer might have contacted him over a phone call and he cannot recall the details. PW-1 has further deposed that he had not taken any details such as the name, PAN number despite selling him goods/product worth Rs. 5,00,000/- (approximately) and further that the walk-in customer must have gone to his godown with one of his employees after receipt of invoice Ex. P-2, however, on the same question, the witness again said, it may have been the case that he had EBBANI personally accompanied the walk-in customer till his AGGARWAL Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL godown. On the same question, PW-1 again said, it might Date: 2025.07.07 15:25:11 +0530 State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 5 of 18 have been that the walk-in customer got the goods collected through his own employee.
9. Thereafter, PW-1 was confronted with document Ex. PW- 1/DX-1 wherein the witness deposed that the said document does not contain the details/record of sale, purchase and stock and further that he did not give the said details. PW-1 further deposed that no document or register was being maintained for payment of wages or receipts of payment of wages. PW-1 has further deposed that it might have been the case that wages for period of 13 days of October, 2011 might not have been given to the accused and further that it is correct that he received notice from Trade Union on behalf of accused for settlement of dues after the present incident.
10.PW-2, Ms. Alpana Baneerjee had deposed that she runs a placement agency in same and style of Alsachi Corporate Services and that she had referred accused for the post of accountant to complainant Rajesh Aggarwal. PW-2 further deposed that she had handed over bio-data of accused, bill of the fees and service tax form to the IO which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A and photocopies of the same are Mark-X-1 (running into 10 pages).
The witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused.
11.PW-7, IO/SI Manoj Sahrawat, is the first IO who has deposed that DD No.34A was registered on receipt of EBBANI AGGARWAL complaint Ex. PW-1/A which was marked to him for Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.07 15:25:19 +0530 State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 6 of 18 investigation and further that on 17.10.2011, he made endorsement and prepared rukka Ex. PW-7/A on basis of which present FIR Ex. PW4/A was registered. PW-7 further deposed that on 18.10.2011, a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-1/DX1) was served upon the complainant to which complainant had filed a reply which is Ex. PW-1/D and further that on 24.10.2011, accused came to the PS where he was interrogated. PW-7 further deposed that during course of investigation, CDR of accused (Ex. PW-7/D-1) was analysed and search for case property was conducted but the same could not be recovered. PW-7 has correctly identified the accused before this Court.
12.PW-7 was thereafter cross-examined on behalf of accused wherein he deposed that it is correct that he had visited the house of accused after registration of present FIR, search of the house of accused was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered from the house of accused. PW-7 further deposed that he had called the accused on his mobile number but the same switched off and further that complainant could not provide any details of the walk-in customer who had made a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him in cash. PW-7 further deposed that despite making inquiry from employees of complainant he could not find Digitally any document/material regarding handing over of cash of signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused. PW-7 further deposed that 15:25:27 +0530 accused had told him that on 14.10.2011 accused had got one demand notice issued from Labour Union against complainant for payment of dues of his salary and further State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 7 of 18 that he did not make any inquiry from the Labour Union regarding the said fact.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
13.Statement of accused person in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused, to which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that complainant has filed this complaint against him as he was demanding his dues of salary from complainant. The accused opted to lead evidence in his defence and the matter was listed for DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
14.Accused examined himself as DW-1 wherein he deposed that he got employed at the office of complainant through Alsachi Placement Agency and his salary was fixed at Rs. 9,000/- per month along with Rs. 500/- as conveyance fees. DW-1 further deposed that he had joined the office of complainant on 06.08.2011, however, on 23.08.2011, he got infected with dengue, was advised bed rest for 3-4 days and after recovering, he again joined the office of complainant on 03.09.2011. DW-1 further deposed that he asked for his dues of salary from complainant, complainant informed him that he will not pay the salary of first month of his employment and thereafter, on 06.10.2011, when he asked for his salary for second month of his employment but complainant avoided him. DW-1 further deposed that Digitally State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Page No. 8 of 18 EBBANI AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 15:25:36 +0530 on 13.10.2011, he had visited the house of complainant at around 10:30 AM where complainant had handed over two cheques to be deposited at Bank, one C-Form pertaining to Sales Tax to be deposited at Vijay Sales Corporation and after getting both these things done, he continued with regular office work. DW-1 further deposed that at around 05:00 PM on 13.10.211 only, when he again asked for his dues of salary, complainant started hitting him and threw him out of the office and thereafter, he left from the office and subsequently, wrote a letter to Labour Union which was received back at his house. DW-1 further deposed that he got a charger after his mobile phone became operational from 15.10.2011, he joined the investigation of present case and subsequently, in March 2012, he was arrested. DW-1 has placed on record following documents in support of his defence:
(i) Mark A: Letter sent to Labour Commissioner.
(ii) Mark B: Letter sent to complainant.
(iii) Mark C: Letter sent to SHO, PS Badli
(iv) Ex. DW-1/A: Prescription issued by Anand Maya Hospital
15.Thereafter, DW-1 (accused) was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State where he deposed that prescription Ex. DW- 1/A does not bear stamp of the hospital and further that complaint made to SHO (Mark-C) does not bear any date.
16.Accused has also examined other witnesses DW-2 to DW- 4 in support of his defence and the said are only formal witnesses who were summoned to produce relevant EBBANI State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini AGGARWAL Page No. 9 of 18 Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.07 15:25:44 +0530 records The said witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State, thereafter DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL AGRUMENTS
17.Ld. APP for State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish that accused was entrusted with the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- through the testimony of PW-1 and further that prosecution has also been able to prove that accused was an employee of complainant through testimony of PW-2 who is an independent witness. Ld. APP for State has further argued that prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients for commission of offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 408 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused be convicted for the said offence.
18.Per contra, it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that prosecution has not been able to establish the entrustment of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused beyond reasonable doubt as prosecution has heavily relied upon testimony of PW-1 who has not given any details about the transaction through which he received the said cash amount. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that PW-1 has filed a false case against the accused as the accused was demanding his salary dues for which accused had even approached the Labour Union for the salary dues. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that there has been a delay of around four days in recording of the present FIR and further that the contents of FIR are vague.
EBBANI State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini AGGARWAL Page No. 10 of 18 Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.07 15:25:51 +0530 Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused and he be acquitted for offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 408 of IPC as prosecution has not been able to establish the fact of entrustment of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused beyond reasonable doubt which is one of the pre-requisites to establish commission of the said offence.
DISCUSSION ON MERITS
19.This Court has carefully perused the record of the case, has heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Ld. Counsel for accused and has carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evi- dence led on behalf of the prosecution.
20.It is an established principle in Indian criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled position of law that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused and whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted.
21.Before coming to the merits of the case, it becomes imper- ative to discuss the statutory ingredients of the offence for which the accused has been charged with as well as the po- sition of law regarding the same. Section 408 of IPC pro- vides for punishment for commission of offence of crimi- nal breach of trust when the said offence is committed by a clerk/servant/employee. Offence of criminal breach of trust Digitally signed by EBBANI State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 Page No. 11 of 18 15:25:59 +0530 has been defined in Section 405 of IPC which reads as un- der:
"Section 405. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropri- ates or converts to his own use that prop- erty, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direc- tion 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 dis- charge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
22.In the case of Narendra Pratap Narain Singh And Anr. vs State Of U.P, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 88; 1991 INSC 89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the definition of offence of "criminal breach of trust" and has further laid down the ingredients which the prosecution needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt to establish commission of the said offence. The relevant excerpt is reproduced as under:
"....Section 405 defines 'criminal breach of trust'. The essential ingredients of Section 405 are:
(1) The accused must be entrusted with property or dominion over property: (2) The person so entrusted must use that property or
(b) dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust."
EBBANI AGGARWAL State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Digitally signed by Page No. 12 of 18 EBBANI AGGARWAL Date: 2025.07.07 15:26:07 +0530
23.Further, in the landmark case of Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Anr. v. State of Bombay, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 319 ; 1960 INSC 53 (hereinafter referred to as Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai Case), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that principle ingredient for commission of offence of criminal breach of trust is dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property and in all cases, a person cannot be convicted for offence of criminal breach of trust merely because he was unable to handover the property entrusted to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held under:
"The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal breach of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on his failure to account for the property entrusted to him, or over which he has dominion, even when a duty to account is imposed upon him, but where he is unable to account or renders an explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may readily be made."
24.Therefore, in order to establish commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, the basic ingredients that prosecu- tion is duty bound to establish are firstly, "entrustment" of some property to the accused and secondly, "dishonest misappropriation or misapplication or conversion of the property" by the accused.
Digitally signed by EBBANI State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 13 of 18 2025.07.07
15:26:14
+0530
25.The term "entrustment" may have different implications in different scenarios but in general terms, it implies handing over of possession of the property for a particular purpose to the accused without conferring any proprietary rights or ownership rights on the accused. Further, in addition to en- trustment of the property, the prosecution is bound to es- tablish the existence of "dishonest intention" on part of the accused. Dishonest intention is the basic thread running across the provision and without existence of dishonest intention, offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be said to have been committed. The dishonest intention of accused can be inferred from the appropriation or use of the property and a mere negligent act on the part of accused or failure to hand over the property entrusted to the accused cannot be sufficient proof of dishonest intention in each and every case.
This Court shall now proceed to discuss whether the prose- cution has been able to establish the above-mentioned in- gredients by leading reliable and cogent evidence or not.
With respect to ingredient (i) : "ENTRUSTMENT OF PROPERTY"
26. The prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW-1 coupled with the copy of the retail invoice Ex. P-2 showing cash transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- to establish entrustment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused. This Court shall now proceed to discuss if the prosecution has been able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt or not.
27.PW-1 has stated that on 13.10.2011, he had entrusted sum Digitally State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini signed by EBBANI Page No. 14 of 18 EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 15:26:25 +0530 of Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused for handing over the same to his brother at the godown at Badli and further that he had received the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- through sale of polyester film to a walk-in customer from his home office through retail invoice Ex. P-2.
28.However, during the cross-examination, PW-1 has himself admitted that there is no document in writing to show entrustment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused. Retail invoice Ex. P-2 nowhere connects the accused with handing over of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- and has been relied upon by the prosecution only to show the availability of sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with PW-1 on the date of incident.
29. Perusal of retail invoice Ex. P-2 shows that the same has been simply issued to "Party Name : Cash" and the name of the customer/ any other details of the customer to who the same was issued has not been mentioned. As per testimony of PW-7/IO, PW-1/complainant did not provide details of the walk-in customer during the course of investigation and further even before his Court, during the course of cross-examination also, PW-1/complainant did not provide any details whatsoever of the walk-in customer who made the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him on the date of incident.
30.In absence of any details of the walk-in customer, retail invoice Ex. P-2 is merely a document which can be easily generated by complainant in ordinary course of business and this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be solely relied upon to show availability of cash amount of Digitally State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Page No. 15 of 18 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 15:26:31 +0530 Rs. 5,00,000/- with PW-1/complainant on the date of incident as the possibility of it being generated only to implicate the accused cannot be ruled out.
31.It is also pertinent to mention here that PW-1/complainant has not remained consistent in his stand and has time and again changed his version whenever he was questioned about the walk-in customer and one such instance was when PW-1/complainant was asked about the manner in which the walk-in customer came in contact with him. At first, PW-1/complainant has stated that the walk-in customer must have approached his godown and his employees would have referred the walk-in customer to his home office, however, in the same breath, PW- 1/complainant has also stated that the walk-in customer might have contacted him over a phone call and he cannot recall the details.
32.Further, testimony of PW-1/complainant does not inspire confidence as PW-1/complainant has deposed contrary to the documents furnished by himself. During his examination-in-chief, PW-1/complainant has stated that the salary of accused was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month, however, the appointment letter (Ex. P-4) which has been Digitally signed by issued under signatures of PW-1/complainant shows that EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.07.07 15:26:51 the salary of accused was fixed at Rs. 9,000/- per month.
+0530
33.It is also noteworthy to mention that PW-1/complainant has also admitted that he had received a notice from the Labour Union regarding arrears of salary of accused and despite there being a salary dispute, PW-7/IO has admitted State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 16 of 18 that no investigation was conducted by him to verify the same from the office of the concerned Labour Union.
34.Therefore, in light of lack of investigation coupled with the inconsistent stand of PW-1/complainant, this Court is of the opinion that testimony of PW-1/complainant cannot be solely relied upon to establish the entrustment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, prosecution has not been able to establish ingredient (i).
With respect to ingredient (ii) : "DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION OR MISAPPLICATION OR CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY"
35.Through various judicial pronouncements, it is now a well settled position of law that in order to establish commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, prosecution has to establish the dishonest misappropriation or misapplication or conversion of property. [Reliance has been placed on Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai Case (Supra)]
36.However, in the case at hand, not even an iota of evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that accused has dishonestly misappropriated the cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- or has converted the cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his own use. There has been no recovery of the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the accused during the entire course of investigation.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any dishonest misappropriation Digitally signed by EBBANI State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 17 of 18 2025.07.07
15:27:00
+0530
or misapplication or conversion of the cash amount by the accused.
CONCLUSION
37.In view of the foregoing facts, marshalling of evidence as well as established legal position, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has neither been able to establish entrustment of the cash amount to the accused nor has the prosecution been able to establish dishonest misappropriation or misapplication or conversion of the cash amount by the accused and therefore, prosecution not been able to discharge the burden cast upon it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and accused Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhry S/o Sh. Ganesh Chaudhry is hereby acquitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 408 of IPC.
38.This judgement contains 18 pages and all pages have been digitally signed by undersigned.
Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL EBBANI Date: AGGARWAL 2025.07.07 Announced in open Court (EBBANI AGGARWAL) 15:27:05 +0530 on 07.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-03 North-West, Rohini, Delhi State vs. Krishan Kanhiya Chaudhary FIR No. 299/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 18 of 18