Possession of a locker key alone cannot sustain a Section 409 conviction without proof of misappropriation.

An audit at the Kamdara branch of the Central Co-operative Bank disclosed a cash shortage of Rs. 60,895.24.

The bank’s cashier, Chandra Shekhar Singh, was initially accused; the petitioner, then Branch Manager, was later summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC.

The trial court convicted him under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

He challenged those decisions in revision, contending that the evidence did not establish his participation in the defalcation.

Whether the concurrent judgments convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 409 IPC suffered from a serious error of law warranting interference in revision.

The conviction was under Section 409 IPC, concerning criminal breach of trust by, among others, a banker or agent.

The judgment’s analysis focused on whether the evidence supported the petitioner’s criminal involvement in the alleged defalcation.

Although the petitioner had been added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, the court cited no precedent or separately articulated test governing revisional interference; it examined whether the lower courts had committed a serious error of law in convicting him.

The court accepted that the shortage was established but found that the lower courts had convicted the petitioner principally because he held one of the two locker keys.

The evidence described the sequence for operating the keys, while other testimony indicated that the cashier handled the cash and that the cashier was implicated by his conduct after the shortage was found.

The inquiry report and initial FIR also focused on the cashier.

In the court’s view, the lower courts had not properly considered this evidence before attributing criminal liability to the petitioner.

It allowed the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence.

As the petitioner was on bail, he was discharged from his bail bond and the sureties were discharged.