The Bombay High Court was recently disappointed by the casual approach of the police and the judges while handling evidence and conducting trial in a case leading to wrongful conviction of a person.

Singe-judge Justice SM Modak on March 14 expressed his displeasure at the manner in which the trial court and appellate court convicted a person by overlooking the absence of an important piece of evidence.

“This is blatant disregard to the responsibility bestowed on the stakeholders. The Investigating Officer has retired. I deem it necessary to bring this lackadaisical approach of Police and Judges to the Joint Director, MJA. Because training is imparted to Judges. He can bring this fact to the notice of trial Court and Appellate Court Judges trained there,” the High Court said while acquitting an accused in a case of criminal breach of trust.

Justice SM Modak directed the Joint Director of the Maharashtra Judicial Academy to take this up at the training level with the judges at the Academy.

The High Court also directed the Joint Director to inform the High court of the steps taken to address the issue.

The convict, Anand Sakpal, a postmaster, was accused of misappropriating an amount of ₹28,834 between August 20, 2006 to February 28, 2007.

His superior inspected the registers which contained entries of amounts deposited in the postal department accounts and suspected the crime.

After cross-checking the amounts with the account holders, the superior filed a complaint with the police.

Sakpal was booked under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 468 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code.

He was tried before the Judicial Magistrate at Khalapur in Raigad district of Maharashtra who acquitted him of the offence of forgery.

However, Sakpal was convicted for criminal breach of trust and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

This was challenged before the Sessions Judge at Panvel in Raigad who upheld the trial court order.

Disappointed , Sakpal approached High Court with a revision application.

Justice Modak noted that the police had not seized the relevant registers (2006-2007) on the basis which the complaint against Sakpal came to be filed.

Instead, the registers seized were those containing entries from August 2004 to February 2005. Even these registers were not produced before the trial court, the High Court took note.

The High Court judge was particularly dissatisfied that the both magistrate and sessions judge had overlooked the lacunae in the prosecution evidence.

“Without inspecting registers, he was not in a position to conclude about misappropriation. I find lacuna in the prosecution evidence. Even the oral evidence in the form of all the witnesses (except the complainant) their version could not be substantiated by producing the documentary evidence in the form of register and journals,” the High Court concluded.

It, therefore, acquitted Sakpal and ordered his immediate release from prison.

Case title: Anand Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra