An appeal against acquittal is the steepest climb in criminal litigation, and Ramkrushna Prahlad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019, 2026 INSC 1099, decided 8 October 2026) shows why. The Supreme Court restored a trial court acquittal under Section 409 IPC that the Bombay High Court had reversed, holding that a seizure unsupported by its panch witnesses and conducted in disregard of Section 100 CrPC could not be proved on the investigating officer’s word alone — and that the High Court had compounded the error by shifting the burden of explanation onto the accused.
A two-decade journey through three courts
The appellant was acquitted by the trial court of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC. In 2017, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reversed that acquittal, relying centrally on documents said to have been seized from his house. The Supreme Court’s judgment of 8 October 2026 — in an appeal instituted in 2019 — completes the arc, restoring the acquittal and cancelling the bail bonds.
The seizure that could not be proved
The prosecution’s case depended on 46 articles allegedly seized from the appellant’s house. The seizure, however, failed every test of proof. Both panch witnesses turned hostile. The accused’s signature was absent from the seizure panchnama — a gap the High Court had dismissed as insignificant. No list of the seized items was supplied to the accused, contrary to Section 100(7) CrPC, and the attestation safeguards of Section 100(4) went unobserved. The Supreme Court held that in these circumstances, “the seizure could not be held to be duly proved solely on the basis of deposition of the IO.”
High Court’s approach
Treated the seized articles as an incriminating circumstance the accused had to explain, and relied on the IO’s testimony without corroboration.
Supreme Court’s correction
The burden of proving a valid seizure was on the prosecution. An unproved seizure generates no circumstance for the accused to answer, and the burden never shifts.
Entrustment and intention — the missing ingredients
Section 409 IPC requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. The original cashbook, daily registers and audit records that would have shown collection and entrustment of the money were never produced, despite the investigating officer’s own demands for them — and the trial court had rightly drawn an adverse inference from their absence. A printed list unconnected to the appellant could not fill the gap. On intention, the Court was categorical: there was “no evidence whatsoever to indicate any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant.”
The appellate standard at work
The judgment is a working illustration of the double presumption that protects an acquitted accused: the presumption of innocence, reinforced by a judicial finding of not guilty. A High Court reversing an acquittal must displace both — by showing the trial court’s view was not merely debatable but unsustainable. Here the trial court had followed the evidence: hostile panchas, missing primary records, procedural non-compliance. The reversal, built on the IO’s uncorroborated word and a shifted burden, could not stand.
Defence checklist in seizure-based prosecutions:
Test the panchnama against the statutory safeguards for searches; confirm whether the accused signed and received a list of seized articles; track whether the panch witnesses support the seizure; demand the primary records said to establish entrustment; and where the prosecution withholds its best documents, press for the adverse inference the law supplies.
Under the current procedural code, the discipline is the same: the BNSS carries forward the CrPC’s search-witness safeguards, and the principle that procedural irregularity, while not fatal in isolation, counts cumulatively against a prosecution whose core proof is already shaky.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does non-compliance with search and seizure procedure vitiate the seizure?
Not by itself. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC — now mirrored in the BNSS provisions on searches — is an irregularity in the investigation, not an automatic nullity. But considered cumulatively with other factors casting doubt on the prosecution case, it weighs in favour of the accused, especially in an appeal against acquittal.
Why could the seizure not rest on the investigating officer’s testimony?
Both panch witnesses turned hostile, the accused’s signature was missing from the seizure panchnama, no list of seized articles was supplied, and the safeguards of Section 100(4) and (7) CrPC were not followed. In that state of the record, the Court held the seizure could not be held duly proved solely on the IO’s deposition.
What are the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC?
Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent requires proof of entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Here the prosecution failed to produce the original cashbook, registers and audit records that would have shown entrustment, inviting an adverse inference, and no dishonest intention was established.
What standard governs appellate reversal of an acquittal?
An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. The appellate court may reverse only where the trial court’s view is impossible or perverse, not merely because another view is available. The Supreme Court found the High Court had erred in reversing a plausible, evidence-based acquittal and in treating unproved seizures as incriminating circumstances requiring explanation from the accused.