NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has overturned the conviction of a former accountant at the National Heart Institute, previously sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for allegedly embezzling Rs 55 lakh, citing a complete lack of incriminating evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Lovleen delivered the judgment on April 4, allowing the appeal filed by Sachin Suri against a March 2024 magistrate’s order that found him guilty under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant.
The case, originally built upon accusations from the institute’s accounts officer, S K Shailly, alleged that Suri had failed to deposit Rs 55 lakh into the employer’s bank account during his tenure. Shailly’s oral testimony claimed he had discovered discrepancies in the account, which eventually pointed to 11 bank entries revealing the shortfall.
However, the court found that the prosecution’s case was solely dependent on these claims, unsupported by legally admissible evidence. Notably, the court stated that the entries presented were mere printouts of an electronic record, not accompanied by the mandatory Section 65B certificate of the Indian Evidence Act, a legal requirement for the admissibility of digital records.
“The testimony of the accounts officer must be discarded summarily,” the judge said, emphasising that no credible evidence had been brought on record to demonstrate that Suri ever received the funds in question from the institute.
The court further noted that there was neither documentary proof nor any witness to support the claim that the funds were entrusted to the accused. “The prosecution has not submitted any register or document reflecting Suri’s acknowledgment of receipt of these sums,” the order said.
Even the forensic analysis failed to bolster the case. Deposit slips examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Rohini produced an inconclusive handwriting report, offering no clarity on whether the entries were indeed linked to Suri.
Moreover, the court dismissed the audit report provided by the institute. It cited two primary reasons: the prosecution did not call the report’s preparer to testify, and the document itself bore a disclaimer stating that it should not be treated as an audit opinion, as it was not prepared in accordance with standard auditing practices.
“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove entrustment of Rs 55 lakh to the accused.Without that, the conviction cannot stand,” the judge concluded, thereby setting aside the earlier judgment.