P&H HC Upholds ATM Cash Feeder’s Acquittal In ₹22-Lakh Theft-And-Fire Case, As Prosecution Couldn’t Link Recovered Cash Or Hardware To The Crime

On 14 February 2014, a fire damaged a Punjab National Bank ATM in Kaithal, and approximately ₹22,05,700 was reported missing.

The respondent, who performed ATM cash-feeding work, was charged under Sections 436, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not proved the alleged recoveries, the connection of recovered property to the offence, entrustment, dishonest inducement, or his role in setting the ATM on fire. The State appealed against the acquittal.

Under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody are generally inadmissible, subject to the discovery exception in Section 27. Criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment; cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement resulting in delivery or retention of property; and the prosecution must prove the accused’s involvement in an offence under Section 436 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but should not reverse an acquittal where the trial court’s view is reasonably available on the evidence; interference is warranted for compelling reasons, including perversity or clear unreasonableness. The Court relied on Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, and Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450.

The High Court found the trial court’s assessment supported by material evidentiary gaps. The prosecution had not recorded the denominations or serial numbers of the allegedly stolen currency, and the ATM’s CPU and hard disc could not be reliably identified by serial number. The cash recoveries were made from a joint house without independent witnesses; the jewellery and air-conditioners were linked to purchases by the respondent’s parents before the incident.

The evidence also did not establish that the respondent induced bank officials to deliver money, that property had been entrusted to him, or that he set the ATM on fire. In light of these deficiencies, and applying the restrained standard for appellate interference with acquittals, the Court held that the trial court’s view was plausible and not perverse or illegal.

It upheld the trial court’s judgment dated 8 May 2017 and dismissed the State’s appeal; any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.