Noida: It took 31 years for justice to be delivered in a 1993 embezzlement case involving a money order worth Rs 1,575 at the Sector 19 post office in Noida. A local court has sentenced a former postal clerk to three years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. Failure to pay the fine will result in an additional one-year jail term.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM-I) Mayank Tripathi convicted Mahendra Kumar, a resident of Kashyap Colony in Pilkhuwa, Hapur, under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, on October 12, 1993, Arun Mistri, a resident of Sector 15, Noida, had sent a money order of Rs 1,500 to his father, Madan Mahto, in Samastipur, Bihar. The accused postal clerk, Mahendra Kumar, received the amount along with Rs 75 as commission but failed to deposit the money in the government account. Instead, he issued a fake receipt and handed it over to the sender. When the recipient did not receive the money, Arun Mistri lodged a complaint with postal superintendent Suresh Chandra on January 3, 1994.
A departmental inquiry later found that the receipt was forged and the money was never deposited in the official account. During the probe, Mahendra admitted his wrongdoing and deposited Rs 1,575 in the postal department on February 8, 1994. In a written statement, he promised to repay any future discrepancies if detected. Based on the inquiry report, a case was registered at Sector 20 police station, leading to a formal charge sheet against him. Charges were framed on January 5, 2001, but Mahendra pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, postal superintendent Suresh Chandra testified that the receipt issued for the money order was fake and the funds were missing from government records. He also confirmed that the accused had later returned the embezzled amount to the department after admitting his guilt.
In its judgment, the court observed that the prosecution had proved the charges against Mahendra Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that a government servant is expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity, and that crimes involving breach of public trust weaken the administrative system and erode public confidence.
Citing a 1988 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ram Shankar Patnaik vs State of Odisha, the court stated that returning the misappropriated money after the offence does not nullify the crime. Repayment can only be considered as a mitigating factor during sentencing. The court further noted that even the testimony of a single credible and consistent witness is sufficient for conviction.
While pronouncing the sentence, the court took into account the long duration of the case, the convict’s service history, and his family circumstances. However, it emphasized that public servants are expected to uphold the law with greater responsibility. The judge also referred to the principle laid down by ancient lawgiver Manu, who described punishment as the protector of society.
After more than three decades, the verdict finally brings closure to a case that began with a small act of dishonesty but grew into a long legal battle testing the patience of the justice system.
