Can the conviction be set aside in Punjab and Haryana High Court because the trial magistrate issued commissions without District Magistrate approval?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a senior clerk in a municipal corporation is entrusted with a cash reserve meant for emergency repairs of public infrastructure, and during a brief period of leave the clerk allegedly diverts a portion of that cash to settle personal liabilities, prompting the corporation’s internal audit to raise questions and the investigating agency to register an FIR for criminal breach of trust.

The investigating agency files a charge‑sheet alleging that the accused, while in possession of the funds, exercised dominion over them in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the office, thereby constituting an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The trial magistrate, after several adjournments, decides that the testimony of the municipal engineer, the senior auditor, and the chief accountant is essential to establish the chain of custody of the money. Citing logistical inconvenience, the magistrate issues commissions under the Criminal Procedure Code to examine these witnesses, but does so without first making an application to the District Magistrate as required by the statutory provisions governing the issuance of commissions.

During the trial, the commissioned testimonies are recorded in writing and entered into the record, while the accused is not present for the examination of the essential witnesses. The magistrate relies on these statements to convict the accused and imposes a term of imprisonment. The accused contends that the evidence was obtained in violation of the procedural safeguards that guarantee the right to confront and cross‑examine witnesses in open court, and argues that the conviction is unsafe because the statutory conditions for issuing commissions were not satisfied.

While the accused could simply deny the factual allegations of misappropriation, such a factual defence does not address the core procedural defect: the failure to obtain the District Magistrate’s approval and to state reasons for the commission, as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the conviction rests on evidence that was procured through an invalid commission, the ordinary denial of the allegations cannot overturn the judgment. The remedy therefore must target the procedural irregularity that vitiated the trial proceedings.

The appropriate avenue for redress lies before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which possesses inherent powers under the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings that are tainted by jurisdictional defects. A petition invoking Section 482 of the Code enables the court to examine whether the trial magistrate exceeded his authority by issuing commissions without the requisite approval, and to determine whether the evidence obtained thereby should be excluded. By filing such a petition, the accused seeks a declaration that the trial court’s order is ultra vires and a direction to set aside the conviction.

A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise the petitioner to draft a detailed revision petition, highlighting the statutory requirement of an application to the District Magistrate under Section 503, the necessity of recording material evidence in the presence of the accused, and the prejudice suffered due to the denial of cross‑examination. The petition would also cite precedents where High Courts have exercised their inherent powers to quash convictions that rest on evidence obtained through unauthorized commissions.

Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often encounter similar procedural challenges when commissions are issued without proper sanction, and they routinely argue that such commissions violate the accused’s right to a fair trial guaranteed under the Constitution. By drawing on these comparative insights, the petitioner can reinforce the argument that the procedural lapse is not a mere technicality but a fundamental breach of due process that warrants intervention by the High Court.

The High Court, upon examining the petition, would assess whether the trial magistrate’s action contravened the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code. If the court finds that the commission was issued without the mandatory application and without the District Magistrate exercising independent judicial discretion, it would likely deem the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the conviction, which is predicated on that evidence, would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded for a fresh trial where the essential witnesses are examined in open court, ensuring the accused’s right to confront and cross‑examine them.

A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court might note that the remedy of quashing the conviction through a Section 482 petition is preferable to a direct appeal on the merits, because the procedural defect strikes at the heart of the trial’s legality. Likewise, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would emphasize that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is the proper forum to address such jurisdictional errors, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Question: Does the trial magistrate’s issuance of commissions to record the testimony of the municipal engineer, senior auditor and chief accountant without first obtaining the mandatory approval from the District Magistrate invalidate the commissions and consequently render the evidence inadmissible?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the trial magistrate, faced with logistical arguments, resorted to written commissions for the examination of three essential witnesses. The procedural framework governing commissions expressly requires an application to the District Magistrate, a statement of reasons and the exercise of independent judicial discretion before a commission can be issued. By bypassing this prerequisite, the magistrate acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon him. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the omission strikes at the heart of the safeguards designed to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial, because the statutory gate‑keeping function of the District Magistrate is intended to ensure that commissions are employed only when attendance in open court is truly impracticable. The absence of such oversight means the commissions were ultra vires, and any material obtained through them is tainted by procedural illegality. The principle that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused to permit cross‑examination cannot be overridden by an unauthorized commission. Consequently, the prosecution’s reliance on the written statements to sustain a conviction is unsustainable. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers, is likely to deem the commissions void ab initio and to exclude the testimonies as inadmissible. This exclusion would deprive the prosecution of the core evidentiary foundation of its case, rendering the conviction unsafe. The procedural defect therefore not only violates statutory mandates but also undermines the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, necessitating judicial intervention to set aside the judgment predicated on such flawed evidence.

Question: What is the most effective High Court remedy for the accused to challenge the conviction that rests on evidence obtained through the invalid commissions, and why is a petition invoking the court’s inherent powers preferable to a direct appeal on the merits?

Answer: The accused’s primary relief lies in approaching the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a petition that seeks the exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. This remedy is tailored to address jurisdictional and procedural defects rather than the substantive merits of the case. By invoking the inherent powers, the petitioner can directly challenge the legality of the commissions, the denial of the right to confront witnesses, and the consequent reliance on inadmissible evidence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would explain that a direct appeal on the merits would compel the appellate court to re‑evaluate the factual findings, which is unnecessary when the conviction is predicated on a procedural nullity. The inherent jurisdiction allows the High Court to strike down the conviction as ultra vires, declare the trial court’s order void, and direct a fresh trial where the essential witnesses are examined in open court. This approach also expedites relief, as the High Court can dispose of the petition without the need for a full rehearing of the substantive issues, thereby conserving judicial resources. Moreover, the inherent jurisdiction is not confined by the strict procedural ladder of appeals, enabling the court to intervene where the statutory scheme has been breached. The practical implication for the accused is the immediate removal of the custodial sentence and the restoration of liberty, while the prosecution is required to restart the case in compliance with procedural safeguards. For the investigating agency, the quashing underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates in future prosecutions, reinforcing the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Question: How does the denial of the accused’s right to cross‑examine the commissioned witnesses affect the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction?

Answer: The right to cross‑examine is a cornerstone of the adversarial system, ensuring that the accused can test the credibility, perception and recollection of witnesses. In the present case, the commissioned testimonies were recorded in writing while the accused was absent, depriving him of the opportunity to challenge inconsistencies, observe demeanor, or introduce rebuttal evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would contend that this denial violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, as it prevents the accused from confronting the prosecution’s evidence. The reliability of the conviction is consequently compromised because the court’s assessment rests on untested, one‑sided statements. Without cross‑examination, the trial magistrate could not evaluate the truthfulness of the engineer’s account of the cash flow or the auditor’s verification of the ledger entries. The procedural defect thus creates a risk of wrongful conviction, as the evidentiary foundation is not subjected to the rigorous scrutiny required by law. The High Court, upon review, is likely to find that the conviction is unsafe and unsustainable in the absence of a fair opportunity to challenge the core evidence. The practical implication is that the accused’s liberty has been curtailed on the basis of a trial that failed to uphold fundamental procedural rights, warranting remedial intervention to restore the balance of justice. For the prosecution, the exclusion of the commissioned statements means that any remaining evidence must be re‑presented in a manner that respects the accused’s right to confront witnesses, ensuring that any subsequent conviction rests on a sound evidentiary base.

Question: If the High Court quashes the conviction on the ground of procedural irregularity, what are the likely subsequent steps for the case, and how might they impact the prosecution’s ability to secure a conviction in a fresh trial?

Answer: Upon quashing the conviction, the High Court would typically issue a direction that the matter be remanded for a fresh trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. The remand would require the prosecution to re‑file its case, adhering strictly to the procedural safeguards that were previously breached. This includes obtaining the necessary approval from the District Magistrate before issuing any commissions, and ensuring that all essential witnesses are examined in open court with the accused present to enable cross‑examination. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the prosecution must reassess the evidentiary record, identify any gaps created by the exclusion of the commissioned testimonies, and possibly seek fresh statements from the engineer, auditor and accountant under proper procedural authority. The practical impact on the prosecution is twofold: first, the need to reconstruct its case may entail additional investigative work, witness re‑interviewing, and possibly the procurement of documentary evidence to corroborate the alleged misappropriation. Second, the time lag introduced by a fresh trial could affect witness availability and memory, potentially weakening the prosecution’s position. For the accused, the remand offers an opportunity to contest the factual allegations anew, perhaps presenting a stronger factual defence now that procedural fairness is assured. The High Court’s intervention thus serves both to correct a procedural miscarriage and to place the parties on an even footing for a trial that respects due process, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of any eventual conviction.

Question: Are the original FIR and charge‑sheet sufficient to sustain a fresh prosecution after the conviction is set aside, and what procedural safeguards must the investigating agency observe to avoid repeat of the earlier irregularities?

Answer: The FIR lodged by the investigating agency establishes the prima facie case of alleged diversion of municipal funds by the senior clerk and forms the basis of the charge‑sheet. Even after the conviction is set aside, the FIR and charge‑sheet remain valid, provided they were filed in accordance with the procedural requirements of criminal procedure. However, the investigating agency must now ensure that any further evidence collection complies with the safeguards highlighted by the High Court. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would point out that the agency must obtain the requisite approvals before seeking written commissions, must preserve the chain of custody of financial records, and must facilitate the presence of the accused during witness examinations. Additionally, the agency should document any reasons for seeking alternative modes of testimony, such as genuine hardship, and secure the District Magistrate’s discretionary approval. These steps will prevent the recurrence of the procedural defect that invalidated the earlier conviction. The practical implication is that the prosecution, armed with a properly vetted charge‑sheet, can proceed to a fresh trial without the risk of evidence being struck down on procedural grounds. For the accused, the assurance that the investigative process will now respect due process enhances confidence in the fairness of the subsequent proceedings. Ultimately, adherence to these safeguards upholds the integrity of the criminal justice system and ensures that any conviction obtained thereafter rests on legally sound foundations.

Question: On what legal basis can the accused approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court to seek quashing of the conviction and what specific jurisdictional features make this court the appropriate forum?

Answer: The accused can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to intervene in criminal proceedings where a material procedural defect threatens the fairness of the trial. In the present facts, the trial magistrate issued written commissions to examine essential witnesses without first obtaining the mandatory approval of the District Magistrate, a statutory safeguard designed to ensure that material evidence is recorded in the presence of the accused. This omission constitutes a jurisdictional lapse that cannot be cured by a mere factual denial of the alleged breach of trust. Because the conviction rests entirely on testimony procured through an unauthorized commission, the High Court’s power to quash the proceedings under its inherent authority becomes the proper remedy. The High Court is empowered to examine whether the magistrate exceeded his authority, to declare the commission ultra vires, and to order exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence. Moreover, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction extends to reviewing orders of subordinate courts for jurisdictional errors, making it the only forum capable of providing a comprehensive relief that includes setting aside the conviction, directing a fresh trial, and safeguarding the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore structure the petition to highlight the statutory requirement for District Magistrate approval, the prejudice caused by denial of cross‑examination, and the consequent violation of due process, thereby establishing the High Court’s competence to entertain the application and grant the appropriate writ of certiorari or revision.

Question: Why is filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered more effective than pursuing a regular appeal on the merits in this circumstance?

Answer: A revision petition directly targets the procedural irregularity that underlies the conviction, whereas a regular appeal would require the accused to contest the factual findings and the merits of the evidence, an exercise that is futile when the evidence itself is tainted. The trial magistrate’s failure to secure the requisite District Magistrate sanction for the commissions represents a jurisdictional defect that can be addressed only by the High Court’s supervisory powers. By filing a revision, the accused can ask the High Court to examine whether the magistrate acted beyond his authority, to set aside the order that admitted the commission‑derived testimony, and to declare the conviction unsafe. This route bypasses the need to relitigate the substantive allegations of misappropriation, which the accused could simply deny, but such denial would not overturn a judgment founded on procedurally invalid evidence. Moreover, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction allows it to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment, a remedy unavailable in a standard appeal that is confined to errors of law or fact. Engaging lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is crafted with precise reference to the statutory requirement for District Magistrate approval, the constitutional guarantee of the right to confront witnesses, and relevant precedents where High Courts have set aside convictions on similar grounds. Consequently, the revision petition offers a focused, efficient, and legally sound pathway to obtain relief, preserving judicial resources and protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Question: How does the absence of District Magistrate approval for the commissions affect the admissibility of the witness statements, and why does a simple factual denial of the allegations fail to remedy this defect?

Answer: The statutory framework mandates that any commission to examine material witnesses must be sanctioned by the District Magistrate after a reasoned application, ensuring an independent judicial check on the use of written interrogatories. In the present case, the trial magistrate bypassed this requirement, issuing commissions without the necessary approval. This procedural breach renders the statements recorded on those commissions inadmissible because they were not taken in the accused’s presence, depriving him of the constitutional right to cross‑examine and observe the demeanor of the witnesses. The inadmissibility is not a mere technicality; it strikes at the core of the evidentiary foundation of the conviction. A factual denial—that the accused did not divert the municipal funds—does not address the procedural infirmity that vitiated the trial. Even if the factual defence were credible, the conviction cannot stand on evidence that was procured in violation of mandatory safeguards. The High Court, upon reviewing the petition, would therefore be compelled to exclude the commission‑derived testimony, which was the sole basis for the conviction. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the procedural defect nullifies the evidentiary value of the statements, and that the trial court’s reliance on them constitutes an abuse of process. This argument underscores that the remedy must focus on the procedural illegality rather than the factual dispute, reinforcing the necessity of invoking the High Court’s inherent powers to quash the judgment and order a retrial where witnesses are examined in open court.

Question: What practical steps should the accused undertake in selecting counsel and preparing the petition, given the complexities of the procedural defect and the need to engage lawyers in Chandigarh High Court?

Answer: The accused should first identify counsel experienced in criminal procedural matters and familiar with the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court is advisable because they possess local insight into filing practices, procedural nuances, and the expectations of the bench in the region. The next step is to gather the complete trial record, including the commission orders, the written statements of the municipal engineer, senior auditor, and chief accountant, and any correspondence indicating the absence of a District Magistrate application. The petition must meticulously set out the factual background, highlight the statutory requirement for District Magistrate approval, and demonstrate how the omission led to a denial of the right to cross‑examination. It should also reference comparative decisions from other High Courts where similar procedural lapses resulted in quashing of convictions, thereby establishing persuasive authority. The counsel should draft a concise prayer seeking a declaration that the trial magistrate acted ultra vires, an order to exclude the commission‑derived evidence, and a direction for a fresh trial. Additionally, the petition should anticipate and counter possible arguments from the prosecution, such as claims of necessity or convenience, by emphasizing that the statutory safeguard is mandatory and cannot be overridden by administrative convenience. Once the petition is finalized, it must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, accompanied by the requisite court fees, and served on the prosecution. Throughout this process, the accused should maintain regular communication with the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to ensure that any procedural objections raised by the trial court are promptly addressed, thereby maximizing the chances of obtaining the desired relief.

Question: If the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside the conviction, what are the subsequent procedural consequences for the prosecution and the trial court, and how should the accused prepare for the next stages?

Answer: Upon setting aside the conviction, the High Court will typically issue an order directing the trial court to treat the earlier judgment as null and void and to conduct a fresh trial in accordance with the procedural safeguards prescribed by law. The prosecution will be required to re‑examine its case, this time ensuring that all essential witnesses are examined in open court, with the accused present, thereby providing an opportunity for cross‑examination. The trial court must also re‑evaluate the evidentiary material, excluding any statements derived from the unauthorized commissions, and may need to issue fresh summons or warrants for the witnesses. For the accused, it is crucial to remain prepared for a new evidentiary battle; this includes reviewing the prosecution’s case file, identifying any additional defenses, and ensuring that the counsel—whether a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court or a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court—files any necessary pre‑trial applications, such as bail, if the accused remains in custody. The accused should also be ready to challenge any new evidence that the prosecution may seek to introduce, invoking the same constitutional rights to a fair trial. Moreover, the High Court’s order may include specific directions regarding the timeline for the fresh trial to prevent undue delay, and the accused’s counsel should monitor compliance with these timelines. Finally, the accused should keep a vigilant record of all procedural steps taken, as any further irregularities could provide grounds for another revision or writ petition, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice process and ensuring that the rights secured by the High Court’s intervention are fully realized in the subsequent trial.

Question: How can the procedural defect arising from the trial magistrate’s issuance of commissions without the mandatory approval of the District Magistrate be leveraged to obtain a quashing of the conviction and what specific relief should be sought?

Answer: The core of the accused’s challenge rests on the violation of the procedural safeguards that require a magistrate to obtain prior sanction from the District Magistrate before issuing a commission for the examination of essential witnesses. In the present facts, the magistrate bypassed this requirement, failed to state reasons for the commission, and recorded the testimonies in writing without the presence of the accused. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first advise the petitioner to file a petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings that are tainted by jurisdictional defects. The petition must meticulously set out the statutory requirement for an application to the District Magistrate, demonstrate that the magistrate acted ultra vires, and argue that any evidence procured through an invalid commission must be excluded as it contravenes the accused’s constitutional right to confront and cross‑examine witnesses. The relief sought should include a declaration that the commission was void, an order that the evidence recorded on the commission be struck from the record, and consequently that the conviction be set aside. Additionally, the petition may request that the matter be remanded for a fresh trial where the municipal engineer, senior auditor, and chief accountant are examined in open court, ensuring compliance with procedural norms. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often emphasize that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under the criminal procedural framework is a potent tool to correct such fundamental irregularities, and they would recommend that the petition also seek a direction for the investigating agency to re‑examine the cash trail independently. By focusing on the procedural defect rather than the factual allegations, the accused maximizes the chance of obtaining immediate relief while preserving the substantive defence for any subsequent trial.

Question: What specific documents and pieces of evidence should the accused collect to substantiate the claim that the commission testimonies are inadmissible and to strengthen the argument for quashing?

Answer: To build a robust evidentiary foundation, the accused must assemble the original FIR, the charge‑sheet, and the complete trial record, paying particular attention to the commission orders, the written statements of the municipal engineer, senior auditor, and chief accountant, and any annexures indicating the absence of the accused during their recording. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would instruct the petitioner to obtain the application (or lack thereof) made to the District Magistrate, the minutes of any meeting where the commission was authorized, and the statutory guidelines governing commissions. The accused should also secure the audit reports that trace the flow of the municipal cash reserve, bank statements, and any internal correspondence that shows the clerk’s leave period and the timing of the alleged diversion. Copies of the magistrate’s order authorising the commission, together with any notes on reasons for issuance, are critical to demonstrate the procedural lapse. Moreover, the accused should request from the investigating agency the original statements of the witnesses taken during the investigation, if any, to compare with the commission testimonies and highlight inconsistencies. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise filing a formal request under the right to information provisions to obtain these documents, ensuring that the chain of custody of the evidence is clearly mapped. The petitioner should also gather affidavits from independent experts, such as a forensic accountant, who can attest that the cash trail does not conclusively link the accused to the misappropriation, thereby weakening the substantive case. By presenting a comprehensive dossier that includes statutory requirements, the missing application, and the procedural irregularities, the accused can convincingly argue that the commission evidence is inadmissible, warranting the quashing of the conviction.

Question: What are the comparative risks and advantages of pursuing a revision petition invoking the High Court’s inherent powers versus filing a direct appeal on the merits of the conviction?

Answer: The strategic choice between a revision petition and a direct appeal hinges on the nature of the defect and the stage of proceedings. A revision petition, filed under the inherent powers of the High Court, is tailored to address jurisdictional and procedural irregularities, such as the unauthorised commission, without delving into the factual merits of the breach of trust allegation. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would highlight that a revision petition can be entertained promptly, often leading to an expedited quashing of the conviction if the court finds the procedural lapse fatal. This route also avoids the need to re‑argue the substantive evidence, which may be weak but still contested. However, the risk lies in the court’s discretion to dismiss the petition if it deems the defect non‑fatal or if the petition is deemed premature. Conversely, a direct appeal on the merits allows the accused to challenge both procedural and substantive aspects, presenting a comprehensive defence that the alleged misappropriation never occurred. The advantage is that, if successful, the appellate court can acquit the accused outright, providing a definitive end to the case. The downside is that the appeal process is lengthier, may involve a full rehearing of evidence, and the appellate court may be reluctant to overturn a conviction based solely on procedural grounds if it believes the substantive evidence is strong. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often advise that when a clear procedural defect exists, the revision route is more efficient and carries a higher probability of immediate relief, while a direct appeal should be kept as a fallback if the revision is dismissed. The accused must weigh the urgency of release from custody, the strength of the factual defence, and the likelihood of the High Court’s willingness to intervene under its inherent jurisdiction.

Question: How should the accused address the issue of continued custody and the prospect of bail while the High Court petition is pending, and what arguments are most persuasive for securing release?

Answer: While the High Court deliberates on the petition, the accused remains vulnerable to continued detention, making bail a critical interim relief. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first assess whether the accused is presently in judicial custody or under police remand, as the procedural posture influences the bail application. The primary argument for bail rests on the procedural defect that vitiates the conviction; since the evidence on which the conviction rests is arguably inadmissible, the accused’s continued incarceration lacks a lawful basis. The petition should emphasize that the accused has not been convicted by a valid trial, and that the presumption of innocence remains intact. Additionally, the accused can highlight personal circumstances such as family responsibilities, stable residence, and lack of flight risk, supported by sureties. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often stress that the High Court’s inherent power to quash the conviction creates a strong ground for bail, as the pending petition essentially challenges the very foundation of the custodial order. The bail application should also point out that the accused has cooperated fully with the investigating agency, has no prior criminal record, and that the alleged offence, while serious, does not involve violence or a threat to public safety that would justify denial of bail. Moreover, the accused can argue that the procedural irregularities have caused undue prejudice, and that continued detention would exacerbate the injustice. If the High Court grants the petition, the bail order would become moot; however, securing bail now safeguards the accused’s liberty and enables active participation in the High Court proceedings, including the ability to attend hearings and coordinate with counsel effectively.

Question: What strategic arguments can be advanced regarding the accused’s role and intent to counter the substantive allegation of criminal breach of trust, and how might these be integrated with the procedural defence?

Answer: Beyond the procedural challenge, the accused should craft a factual narrative that undermines the prosecution’s claim of dominion over the municipal cash reserve. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise gathering evidence that the accused was on approved leave during the period when the alleged diversion occurred, supported by leave orders, travel tickets, and witness statements from colleagues confirming his absence. The accused can also present the internal audit trail showing that the cash was accounted for by the senior auditor and that any temporary shortfall was rectified by the municipal engineer’s prompt action, indicating that the accused did not exercise control over the funds. Additionally, the accused may produce correspondence with the municipal finance department that demonstrates a procedural request for the cash to be transferred for routine expenses, not personal use. By establishing that the accused lacked both the authority and the opportunity to misappropriate the funds, the defence attacks the essential element of criminal breach of trust—dominion over property entrusted to the accused. This factual defence should be woven into the procedural argument: even if the commission testimonies were admissible, they would be unreliable because the accused was not present to challenge them, and the documentary evidence points to an alternative explanation. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would further suggest that the accused’s intent can be inferred from the absence of any personal benefit, as no bank withdrawals or asset acquisitions traceable to the alleged amount have been identified. By presenting a coherent story that the accused neither possessed the requisite dominion nor derived any pecuniary advantage, the defence not only weakens the substantive case but also reinforces the claim that the trial court’s reliance on the flawed commission evidence was unjustified, thereby strengthening the overall strategy for quashing the conviction.