Delhi District Court
Anoop Gupta vs The State And Ors on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2023
Anoop Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Lakshmi Naryan Gupta,
Situated at: Etaile Creation,
22/29 Patparganj Village, Delhi
..........Appellant
Vs.
1. State
SUBHASH
KUMAR 2. Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra,
MISHRA S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Mishra,
Digitally signed by R/o at: Village P.O. Gaduli,
SUBHASH KUMAR
MISHRA PS Takhganj District Gonda, U.P.
Date: 2025.12.12
16:45:48 +0530 Also at:
14/186, Trilokpuri, Delhi
3. Mr. Kuber Nath Tiwari @ Ram Kuber Tiwari
S/o Ishwar Dutt Tiwari,
R/o at: 25/465, Trilokpuri, Delhi
..........Respondents
Date of institution : 03.06.2023
Judgment reserved on : 12.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 12.12.2025
Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court dated 21.11.2022, whereby the respondent no. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') were acquitted.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, alleged facts are that the accused persons were working as guards in the factory of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') and had the keys of the factory. The accused persons used to open and close the factory. The complainant had purchased 1 lac copper I-let.
On 15.07.2008, the accused persons informed the complainant that the stock of I-let had exhausted but when the complainant checked the stock register, he found that the accused persons had entered only 85,000 I-lets in the stock register of the SUBHASH KUMAR factory. When the complainant came to know about this fact, MISHRA both the accused persons left the service of the complainant and Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA went away.
Date: 2025.12.12 16:47:28 +05303. An FIR was lodged regarding the incident and after the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Charge against both the accused persons was framed under Section 408/34 IPC and an additional charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the accused Ghanshyam Mishra.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined the Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.2 of 12 complainant as PW1, Sh. Subhash Chand as PW2, HC Ravinder Singh as PW3, Ct. Ajay Joshi as PW4, Ct. Shiv Kumar as PW5, SI Shyam Lal as PW6, Inspector Manish as PW7, Inspector Ajab Singh as PW8 and ASI Arvind Kumar as PW9.
5. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons were recorded.
6. Though initially accused persons expressed their willingness to lead evidence in support of their defence, but later they declined to lead such evidence.
7. After hearing the arguments, Ld. Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred.
SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
8. Counsel for the complainant argued that the Ld. Trial Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly because Date: 2025.12.12 16:47:34 +0530 by the evidence led by the prosecution, the factum of criminal breach of trust by the accused persons i.e. the employees of the complainant stood established.
He argued that in furtherance of the disclosure statement of Ghanshyam Mishra, the case property was recovered and hence, his disclosure statement was relevant in view of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, however, Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate this fact.
Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.3 of 12 He also argued that Ld. Trail Court observed in the impugned judgment that the witness did not depose anything regarding missing or misappropriation of 29,000 I-lets, however, the same is clearly mentioned in his complaint.
He further argued that the impugned judgment has overlooked the principles of the appreciation of evidence and the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law.
9. Per contra, counsel for the accused persons argued that the impuged judgment is correct and Ld. Trial Court delivered the impugned judgment after properly appreciating the evidence and other material available on the record.
SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Digitally signed by 10. I have heard the arguments and have also gone through the SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.12.12 16:47:42 +0530 trial court record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the judgments relied on.
11. In Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2024 SC 1805, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in appeal, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.4 of 12 cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal.
12. Therefore, the impugned judgment has to be appreciated in light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
13. Allegedly, the accused person had committed the criminal breach of trust regarding the I-lets entrusted to them in course of their employment. Complainant/PW1 Anoop Gupta was the star Digitally signed by witness examined by the prosecution, in support of its case. SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.12.12 16:48:03 +0530
14. In his complaint/Ex. PW1/A, the complainant/PW1 alleged that he had purchased 1 lac I-lets, but in stock register accused person entered only 85,000 I-lets and when he checked, he found that actually 29,000 I-lets were short in the stock. However, in his testimony, he did not depose anything in this regard. Moreover, the stock register was also not produced to prove the case of prosecution.
Ld. Trail Court has also appreciated this fact and has observed in the impugned judgment as under:-
"13. In his testimony before the court, this witness did not state anything about 29,000 pieces missing or misappropriated by the accused persons. He has not produced any stock register which could show that his factory had one lakh Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.5 of 12 pieces of the eyelets out of which the accused persons have misappropriated 29,000 pieces. No document has been produced by this witness which could show the record of the copper eyelets consumed in the normal functioning of his enterprise."
15. It is the case of prosecution that the I-lets were made of copper. However, the copies of bills relied on by the prosecution shows that the I-lets were brown. It is not mentioned in the bills if the I-lets were brown in colour or the I-lets were made of copper.
Apart from this, neither the original nor duplicate nor triplicate of the said bills was produced by the prosecution. No witness was also examined to prove the said bills.
This fact has also been considered by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment as under:-
"He has produced the photo copies of the bills which purportedly relate to the purchase of the said copper eyelets. The author of the said bill has not been produced before the court and therefore it cannot be said that these bills have been proved as SUBHASH KUMAR per law. In addition thereto, there are several other MISHRA Digitally signed by inconsistencies in the testimony of this witness. The bills SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.12.12 produced do not mention that the eyelets were of copper."
16:48:12 +0530
16. Moreover, the Supervisor/Manager, who also admittedly used to make entries in the stock register, was also not examined. He was the person, who could have deposed on the aspect of actual status of the I-lets available in the factory. For want of his Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.6 of 12 examination, the actual status of the I-lets stored in the factory of the complainant and its disposal in the normal course of business remained not proved.
In this regard, Ld. Trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment as under:-
"In his cross-examination the witness has stated that on some occasions the entries in the relevant record relating to the stock of the eyelets used to be made by the Supervisor/Manager. Neither the specific entries which have been made by the said Supervisor/Manager have been identified during the examination or cross examination nor the said Supervisor/Manager has been produced in the Court. The complainant has even failed to recollect the name of such Supervisor/Manager."
17. Further, PW1 also said in his cross examination that his Digitally signed by father used to look after the affairs of the factory, however, he SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA was not examined as a witness by the prosecution. When the MISHRA Date:
2025.12.12 16:48:22 father of the complainant was looking after the affairs of the +0530 factory, he was the best person to depose on the aspect of the actual stock of I-lets available in the factory and to ascertain if any criminal breach of trust, at all was committed by the accused persons.
Despite this fact, the prosecution did not examine him as a witness in this case. As per illustration (g) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, when the evidence which could have been produced by a party and has not been produced by it then the court may presume that such evidence could have been unfavourable for such party.
Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.7 of 12 In the instant case also, non-examination of the father of the complainant leads to presumption that his testimony could have been unfavourable for the prosecution and therefore, he was not examined.
This fact has also been observed by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment as under:-
"The complainant has stated that his father also used to look after the affairs of the enterprise. For the reasons best known to the prosecution the father has not been examined as a witness."
18. Apart from this, there is a striking difference between the signatures of the complainant on his testimony and on the complaint/Ex. PW1/A. On his complaint he has signed in Hindi, whereas on his testimony he has signed in a completely different script, leading to a doubt if the complaint/Ex. PW1/A was indeed made by the complainant.
The said complaint also becomes doubtful by the fact that SUBHASH in his testimony, the complainant said that he made the complaint KUMAR on the day on which the FIR was lodged i.e. on 14.08.2008, MISHRA Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR whereas on the right top corner of the front page of the MISHRA Date: 2025.12.12 16:48:31 +0530 complaint, the date is mentioned as 27.07.2008.
In this regard, Ld. Trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment as under:-
"What strikes most in the instant case is the fact that the signatures of the complainant appended to his deposition or totally distinct to those appended to the complaint Ex. PW1/A. The naked eye perusal of the signatures appended to the Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.8 of 12 complaint would show that the same were made by the person writing the said complaint. The other documents including the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ghan Shyam, the recovery memo and the pointing out memo all contained the signatures of the complainant identical to those which he had made in the court. The complainant has pleaded ignorance in his deposition when he was questioned about the author of the said complaint Ex. PW1/A. He has stated that he has made the said complaint on the same day on which the FIR was registered. The date appended on the complaint is 27.07.2008 while the FIR has been registered on 14.08.2008. It is apparent that the date 27.07.2008 has been recorded after alteration (correction fluid has been used). The original date,14.08.2008 on the said complaint is visible on The reverse of the page. The prosecution is silent about the reasons for such alteration of the date on the complaint."
SUBHASH 19. As far as the recovery of I-lets at the instance of accused KUMAR MISHRA Ghanshyam Mishra is concerned, complainant/PW1 has deposed Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR that in the evening of 20.09.2008, he received a call from police MISHRA Date: 2025.12.12 16:48:36 +0530 station and then, he went to Trilokpuri Bus Stop, where two police officials were present with the accused Ghanshyam Mishra, who was arrested at his identification. Accused Ghanshyam Mishra took them to his house, where one plastic poly bag containing 4 packets of copper I-lets was recovered at his instance and the same was seized by the IO.
However, PW7 Inspector Manish Kumar deposed that accused Ghanshyam Mishra was arrested on 20.09.2008 and on Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.9 of 12 the next day after taking him in police remand the I-lets were recovered from his house.
From the testimony of PW1, it is clear that the I-lets were recovered at the instance of accused Ghanshyam Mishra on 20.09.2008, whereas as per the testimony of PW7 Inspector Manish Kumar, it was recovered on 21.09.2008. As per the recovery memo/Ex. PW1/E also, the recovery of the I-lets was done on 21.09.2008, which is contrary to the testimony of PW1 and therefore, makes the said recovery doubtful.
This fact also leads to the apprehension of plantation of the said I-lets on the accused.
This fact has also been considered by Ld. Trial Court and it has observed the same in the impugned order as under:-
"17. As per the deposition of the complainant, on 20.09.2008 on receiving information on telephone from the police he reached 13 Block, Trilokpuri Bus Stop and found two police officials with the accused Ghanshyam Mishra. He was arrested at his instance. On the basis of the disclosure of the SUBHASH accused Ghanshyam Mishra they reached his house on the same KUMAR MISHRA day from where the accused got recovered 400 copper eyelets.Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
18. PW-7, Inspector Manish Kumar has deposed that on Date: 2025.12.12 16:48:42 +0530 20.09.2008 he was patrolling the area with constable Arvind when a secret informer told him that the accused Ghanshyam Mishra was present at the 13 Block Bus stop. He stated that on the next day during police custody remand, the accused took all of them to his house from where he got recovered four packets of the eyelets. Inspector Manish Kumar could not tell anything about the persons whom he met at the house of the accused Ghanshyam Mishra where they reached in order to recover the Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.10 of 12 alleged property. He could not tell the size of the house or of its rooms. It is also relevant to mention that no site plan has been prepared of the place from which the alleged recovery has been made. He also could not tell the time of recovering the allegedly stolen property. The failure of this material witness in replying about the details of the house of the accused and about the persons whom he met while entering the said house for the purpose of making the recovery creates a serious doubt in the alleged recovery."
20. From the testimony of PW2/Sh. Subhash Chand, the SUBHASH KUMAR defence of the accused persons that they were demanding MISHRA overtime, ESI and EPF benefits and therefore, in order to Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA pressurize them and other employees, they were falsely Date: 2025.12.12 16:48:50 +0530 implicated in this case by the complainant stands substantiated.
In this regard, Ld. Trial Court has also observed in the impugned judgment as under:-
"20.The prosecution has also examined the witness PW2 Mr Subash Chand who was another employee of the complainant. He has stated that when he had demanded the salary, overtime and other facilities as per the rules from the complainant he was sacked by the complainant. The prosecution has not cross examined this witness on this aspect. The testimony of this witness gives significance to the explanation of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case as they also had demanded the facilities and payments as per the rules from the complainant."
Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.11 of 12
21. Therefore, in view of above discussions and the lacunae in the case of prosecution, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. On the basis of such evidence, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with because after reappreciating the evidence, it does not appear that such evidence could established the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
22. Having discussed as above, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed.
SUBHASH (Subhash Kumar Mishra)
KUMAR Additional Sessions Judge-03,
MISHRA East, KKD Courts, Delhi
Digitally signed by
SUBHASH KUMAR 12.12.2025
MISHRA
Date: 2025.12.12
16:48:57 +0530
Anoop Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.12 of 12