Noida – A Noida court has sentenced a retired sub-postmaster to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for cheating and criminal breach of trust by a public servant in connection with a 32-year-old money order fraud. The court also imposed a fine of ₹10,000, with a default sentence of one additional year of imprisonment if the fine is not paid.
The order was pronounced on October 31 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM-I) Mayank Tripathi, who held Mahendra Kumar, a resident of Pilkhuwa in Hapur district, guilty under Sections 316(2)(a) (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 318(2)(b) (cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — provisions that have replaced the erstwhile IPC Sections 409 and 420.
A 32-Year-Old Case of Betrayed Trust
According to the prosecution, the case dates back to October 12, 1993, when Arun Mistry, a resident of Sector 15, Noida, sent a money order of ₹1,500 to his father Madan Mahato in Samastipur, Bihar. At the time, Mahendra Kumar was posted as Sub-Postmaster at a post office in Sector 19, Noida.
It was alleged that Kumar accepted the ₹1,500 amount and ₹75 as commission but failed to deposit it into the government’s account. Instead, he issued a forged receipt to the sender. When the intended recipient did not receive the money, Mistry lodged a complaint with Post Office Superintendent Suresh Chandra on January 3, 1994.
Inquiry and Admission of Guilt
An internal inquiry revealed that the money had not been deposited and that the receipt was fake. Following this, the Superintendent lodged a formal police complaint at the Sector 20 Police Station.
During the subsequent departmental inquiry, Kumar admitted his wrongdoing and deposited the embezzled amount on February 8, 1994. In his written statement, he also assured that he would return any such amount if similar issues arose in the future.
Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent
In its verdict, the court observed that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the duty of public servants to uphold integrity and trust. The court noted-
“A government servant is expected to work with the highest level of honesty and integrity. Such offences not only weaken the administrative system but also erode public confidence.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s 1988 judgment in Ram Shankar Patnaik vs. State of Orissa, the magistrate reiterated that repayment of the defalcated amount does not nullify the offence. The order stated-
“Once the offence of criminal breach of trust is established, refunding the defalcated amount cannot wipe away the crime. However, such refund may be considered as a mitigating factor while awarding the sentence.”
Judgment Reinforces Ethical Accountability
The judgment underscores that time does not diminish the gravity of corruption and that financial integrity in public service remains non-negotiable. Even decades later, the court’s decision reaffirms the judiciary’s stance that public trust is the cornerstone of governance, and any breach must invite accountability.
