(1.) The Court of law is described as a temple of justice. Logically, the Presiding Officer is the "Pujak" and members of staff are the "Sewaks". It is, therefore, a matter of grave concern when a "Sewak" is alleged to have misappropriated funds of the temple.
(2.) Appellant who was the property Clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikodi, allegedly misappropriated properties belonging to the Court and sold them to four other persons who were acquitted by the trial Court along with the present appellant. While the appellant stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') the rest four stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 411, IPC. The prosecution alleged that while the properties in question were under the domain of the appellant, he sold them to accused Nos. 2 to 5 during the period 2-3-1979 to 6-6-1985 and, therefore, committed the offence as alleged. After charge was framed all the five persons faced trial before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikodi, who by judgment dated 4th July, 1989 held that all the accused persons were not guilty of the charges. He, inter alia, observed that the evidence was not satisfactory regarding entrustment and misappropriation.
(3.) The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court and the Division Bench by the impugned judgment held that no interference was called for in the case of the other four accused who were acquitted. So far as the present appellant is concerned, it was held that the accusations were established by the evidence on record. During the pendency of the appeal the Court felt that there were some aspects which are required to be gone into, and, therefore, by exercise of power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') directed certain materials to be brought on record by the trial Court. That was done. After that by the impugned judgment, the High Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 409, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year.