The Registrar, High Court Of A.P. And ... vs B. Sanjeevaiah on 23 June, 1995
Such essential ingredients for a criminal misconduct for the purpose of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code have been enumerated in Gnaneswar Das Agarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC1646 and State of A.P. v. Y. Basavadevudu, . These implications of law regarding the misconduct of criminal misappropriation are being noted to examine the manner in which it should be proved or established. It is true that like a charge or an offence in a criminal case, the misconduct against a delinquent should be alleged and proved by the disciplinary authority. But in regard to certain types of misconduct when once some of the main ingredients are established by the disciplinary authority, the burden shifts on to the delinquent to establish the other ingredients or to rebut the ingredients already established by the disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly, for an alleged misconduct of misappropriation of criminal breach of trust the entrustment of the property or the funds by the Master to the delinquent should be established. In other words, the dominion over such entrusted property or funds by the delinquent should be initially established.