Public servants remain civilly liable for negligent loss of government funds regardless of criminal acquittal.

The original defendant, Bibhishan Kumar Singh (now represented by his legal heirs/appellants), was a Nazir at the Boarijore Block.

He was entrusted with encashing government bills worth ₹75,628.60.

On July 1, 1985, security guards were provided for the encashment, but the amount was not withdrawn that day.

On July 2, 1985, the defendant encashed the full amount in cash without requesting security guards or opting for a bank draft.

He subsequently claimed that ₹75,000 was stolen from a leather bag at a tea shop while he was washing his shirt.

A police investigation later found his allegation of theft to be false.

The State filed Money Suit No. 1 of 1988 for recovery.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the State, and the First Appellate Court subsequently dismissed the defendant's appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment.

1. Whether the defendant was responsible for the loss of government funds withdrawn from the State Bank of India.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse or involved a substantial question of law warranting interference in a second appeal.

The court primarily applied the statutory standard for Second Appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 100), which mandates that such appeals can only be admitted if they involve a "substantial question of law".

The court further relied on the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless they are demonstrated to be "perverse" or unsupported by evidence.

The High Court scrutinized the evidence presented in the lower courts, noting that the defendant admitted to withdrawing the cash on July 2, 1985, despite having been provided security guards specifically for July 1, 1985.

The court highlighted the testimony of P.W. 8 (a constable), which confirmed that guards were provided initially, and noted that the defendant failed to explain why he did not seek protection for the following day or use a bank draft for safety.

The High Court found the defendant’s version of the "theft" at a tea shop to be unsubstantiated and noted that the police final report categorized the claim as false.

Consequently, the court reasoned that the defendant failed to exercise "proper caution" regarding government money.

Since the appellants could not demonstrate how the lower courts' appreciation of evidence was perverse, the court determined that no substantial question of law existed.

The court concluded that in the absence of a substantial question of law, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed.

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, affirming the judgments of the lower courts.