‘Temple of Justice’ Betrayed: HC Calls Court Clerk’s Funds Misuse a Matter of Grave Concern

Nagpur: Observing that "it is a matter of grave concern when a sewak (servant) misappropriates funds of the temple," the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a former court property clerk convicted of siphoning off ‘muddemal' cash and tampering with judicial records.Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke upheld the conviction of a former property clerk attached to the civil judge junior division court at Saoner for offences under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), Section 466 (forgery of court or public records) and Section 477 related to fraudulent destruction or falsification of accounts.Quoting Supreme Court's ruling in Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar versus State of Karnataka, the judge observed: "The court of law is described as a ‘temple of justice'. Logically, the presiding officer is ‘pujak' and members of staff are ‘sewaks'."The court said allegations against the accused struck at the integrity expected from judicial staff and directly affected public confidence in the justice delivery system.The Ramtek-based petitioner was posted as a property clerk between June 1, 2001, and May 31, 2005. As per the prosecution, he allegedly accepted cash ‘muddemal' and valuable property from Saoner, Khapa, Kalmeshwar, Kelwad and Khaperkheda police stations, issued acknowledgements to police personnel, but failed to enter transactions in court property registers.Investigators found Rs2.45 lakh was misappropriated, while another Rs46,929 was temporarily diverted and later deposited in the criminal court deposit account after delays.The judge noted several pages in property registers had been deliberately left blank after specific entries, while some cash entries showed overwriting without signatures of presiding officers. Evidence also showed that invoice challans bearing the accused's signatures were issued despite corresponding entries being absent in official records.Rejecting the defence argument that sanction under CrPC was mandatory before prosecution of a public servant, the court held that misappropriation of entrusted funds could not be treated as an act connected with official duty."Integrity and honesty are the essence of organisations like courts," Justice Joshi-Phalke observed, adding "the petitioner's act is against interests of litigants and serious in nature."The high court also refused to interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, holding that revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised to reappreciate evidence unless there's a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice.The prosecution relied on testimony from 14 witnesses, including court staff and police personnel who said they handed over ‘muddemal' property and cash to the accused and received signed invoices in return.