Passbook stamped, ledger skipped: Himachal HC keeps postmaster breach of trust, drops cheating

Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the three-year sentence of a branch postmaster for criminal breach of trust over deposits never credited to depositors, but acquitted him of cheating, holding that the two offences cannot stand together on the same facts.

Depositors at a branch post office in Una district handed over small sums, sometimes Rs 50 or Rs 100 a month, and got their passbooks back stamped and initialled. The money never reached the post office ledgers.

On 6 November 2026 the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the three-year jail term of the Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster who handled those deposits. It also threw out his second conviction, for cheating, on the ground that the law treats the two offences as mutually exclusive.

What the prosecution said

Ravinder Kumar was the Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster at the Branch Post Office, Dhundla, under Lathiani Sub Post Office. He looked after deposits. The police case was that depositors paid him money with pay-in slips and passbooks, and that he entered each sum in the passbook, date-stamped it and initialled it.

He then failed to record the amounts in the S.B. Journal, the B.O. Account and the B.O. Daily Account, so nothing was credited to the depositors.

He was also accused of forging the signatures of two account holders to withdraw money. A complaint led to an FIR, and the police charged him under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conviction in 2008, appeal in 2013

The prosecution examined 32 witnesses, among them depositors, the officials who inspected the record and the investigating officer. Mr Kumar admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was the postmaster, and said he had been falsely implicated.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, convicted him on 9 September 2008 and sentenced him on 11 September 2008. For each offence he got three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000, with one month more in default.

The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, dismissed his appeal on 12 September 2013. Both courts found he was a public servant, that the depositors had paid him and that he had not credited the money.

The revision and the two sides

In revision, Mr Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, said that failing to make entries in the journal was at most an irregularity, for which Mr Kumar could be punished departmentally.

He argued there was no proof that money was entrusted to him or that he took it, and relied on N. Raghavender v. State of A.P.

The petitioner also pleaded that he was handling the entire work of the post office, that the lapses came from the burden of work, and that the police had registered two FIRs when one was enough.

Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, answered that the money was entrusted to the postmaster to be credited to depositors’ accounts, and that he failed to do so. The courts below, he said, had appreciated the evidence correctly, and a revisional court should not re-appreciate it.

A narrow revisional lens

Justice Rakesh Kainthla began with the limits of revision under Section 397 of the Code. Citing the Supreme Court in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, he said a revisional court does not act as an appellate court.

It checks the correctness, legality and propriety of findings and sentence, and should not reverse them merely because another view is possible. The passage adds that a High Court should not interfere unless a finding is perverse, rests on irrelevant material or ignores relevant material.

Cheating and breach of trust cannot sit together

The judge then turned to the charges. The police had charged Sections 409 and 420 together, and the Trial Court convicted on both. He held that the two require different states of mind and cannot coexist.

For cheating, dishonest intention must exist from the start, when the victim is induced to hand over property. For criminal breach of trust, property is entrusted voluntarily and the dishonesty comes later.

He cited High Court decisions from Madras, Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd v. State of U.P., which said the two offences cannot coexist in the same set of facts.

It was therefore impermissible to file a charge sheet under Sections 409 and 420 together, he held, or to convict on both.

Entrustment proved, and unexplained

On Section 409, the court listed the elements from Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P. and N. Raghavender: the accused is a public servant, a banker or an agent, he was entrusted with property he must account for, and he committed criminal breach of trust, which needs dishonest misappropriation.

Mr Kumar admitted that he was the postmaster. The depositors, the judge found, were consistent and had no motive to depose against him, and their passbooks bore his stamp and initials. A departmental investigator found no matching entries in the S.B. Journal or the B.O. Account.

The entrustment was therefore proved. Relying on State of H.P. v. Karanvir, the court said that once entrustment is proved, the prosecution need not prove how the money was misappropriated. It is for the accused to show how it was dealt with, and Mr Kumar offered no explanation.

The defence witnesses

Of the two defence witnesses, Kartar Chand said the matter about a recurring deposit had been settled on the spot. The judge held that settlement did not absolve the accused.

The other, Surender Kumar, admitted that Mr Kumar deposited various amounts with the Post Office after his services were terminated. The judge read that as support for the prosecution: the money was returned voluntarily once the misappropriation was detected.

On the argument that this was an administrative lapse, the judge said that the missing entries meant the amount was never credited and stayed with the accused. He called it

“not an oversight, but misappropriation of the money” (para 32)

Why three years stands

Section 409 carries imprisonment for life or up to ten years. The court noted that Mr Kumar held a position of trust and misused it.

It called the offence serious because it shakes public confidence in post office deposits and can have cascading effects. A sentence of three years could not be called excessive, the court said.

Order

The revision is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside, and Mr Kumar is acquitted of cheating.

The fine for that offence, if deposited, is to be refunded after the period of limitation for an appeal. If an appeal is filed, it will be dealt with as the Supreme Court orders.

The conviction and sentence under Section 409 stand: three years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs 5,000 and one month more in default. The record of the courts below is to be returned.