A Shortfall in Government Office Funds Alone Does Not Prove Dishonestly committed Misappropriation or Criminal Breach of Trust: High Court

Supreme Court of Bangladesh

The High Court has observed that an official cannot be convicted of embezzling money merely because a shortage is found in a government office. The court held that, in addition to proving the shortage or loss of government funds, the prosecution must also establish beyond reasonable doubt that the specific funds were in the accused’s custody or control and that the accused misappropriated them with dishonest intent. A person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence on the basis of suspicion alone.

Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali of the High Court Division made the observation in a judgment delivered on 10 September 2026. In the judgment, the court allowed the appeal of Md. Omar Faruk, a postal department employee convicted in connection with a shortage of Tk 1,312,750.94 at Aditmari Upazila Post Office in Lalmonirhat. The court also set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court and acquitted him of the charges.

According to the case details, Omar Faruk was performing additional duties while the regular postmaster of Aditmari Upazila Post Office was on leave. When the regular postmaster returned, the responsibility was supposed to be handed over to him on 11 January 2011. However, Omar Faruk said that he would hand over the responsibility later and eventually left the office. Subsequently, an inventory of the cash and other accounts at the post office revealed a shortage of Tk 1,312,750.94. A case was filed against him under Section 409 of the Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On 23 October 2014, the Special Judge’s Court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine.

During the hearing of the appeal, the High Court found that although the evidence established a shortage of funds at the post office, the prosecution had failed to present reliable evidence that the money had been handed over to the accused and that he had dishonestly misappropriated it. The case alleged that Tk 900,000 had been received from the Lalmonirhat Head Post Office, but there was no specific accounting entry or dispatch record showing that the money had actually reached the Aditmari Post Office. The investigating officer also admitted that he could not confirm whether the money had in fact reached the Aditmari Post Office.

The court further observed that although there was evidence of a transaction involving the deposit of Tk 300,000 by a customer, it had not been proved that the accused personally received or misappropriated the money. Leaving the office without handing over responsibility, or being in charge when the shortage occurred, may give rise to suspicion; however, such circumstances are insufficient for a conviction unless a link is established between the accused and the dishonest misappropriation of the specific funds. According to the court, proving a shortage of funds and proving that the funds were dishonestly misappropriated are two separate matters.

In light of these considerations, the High Court held that the essential elements of the offences under Section 409 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment and sentence, and acquitted the accused.

Case details: Md. Omar Faruk v. The State and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 7712 of 2014; judgment dated 10 September 2026.

Legal significance: The judgment highlights an important principle of criminal justice: a shortage of government funds or an accounting discrepancy does not automatically amount to embezzlement. The prosecution must establish through reliable evidence that the funds were entrusted to or controlled by the accused and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated them.

BD Law Post/ Masum