Karnataka HC Released President of S.D.M.C Government High School on Bail in the Offence of Misappropriation of Funds Granted by Government

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Criminal Petition was filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant the anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 IPC, in the interest of justice and equity. And thereby issue a suitable direction to the concerned Police authorities to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest was allowed.

“Sec 409 of IPC: Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer­chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The petitioner/ Suresh is the President of S.D.M.C. Government High School at Malla. During the year 2014-15, the Government released amount of 13,00,000/- for construction of two additional classrooms and another sum of  3,01,000/- for construction of a kitchen for the purpose of the midday meal. During the year 2015-16, Mehboob was the Head Master of the School. As per the Government circular, any amount more than 2,000/- cannot be drawn in cash under a self cheque and any payment above the said amount has to be made only through cheque, after obtaining bill/voucher. Inspite of the guidelines given in the circular,  the petitioner/President of the School, illegally drawn a sum of `5,84,000/- for himself through twelve different cheques after obtaining the signature of the Head Master and misappropriated the funds released by Government. The said crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

Arguments before the Court

“Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that even a reading of the complaint and accepting the same on its face value would lead to a great suspicion as to, whether the petitioner has committed the alleged act in violation of the alleged Government circular. The same would be the subject matter of trial. He further submits that even according to the complaint, the amount alleged to have been drawn by the petitioner was through cheques. Nowhere the complainant says that they were self cheques. Moreover, the amount was drawn by the joint signatures and not just by the petitioner alone. Further stating that the apprehension of the accused by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of the investigation is not warranted and that the petitioner Crl.P.No.200027/2020 would co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the petition.”

“Learned High Court Government Pleader in his statement of Objections as well in his argument submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the Investigating Officer is yet to collect the evidence, as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.”

Decision of the Court

On an overview of a complaint and prima facie would show that the alleged misappropriation of funds and the alleged act of the petitioner attracting Section 409 and 420 would be through certain negotiable instruments, which even according to the prosecution, are not with the petitioner and are available with the Banker upon whom those cheques were drawn. There was also no contention from the prosecution that any of the materials or documents are in the custody of the accused and the same can be recovered only after arresting petitioner. As such, the petitioner was enlarged on bail under certain conditions.

[googlepdf url=”https://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Head-master-case_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -