Bombay High Court
The Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar ... vs Vasant Gajana Deokar & Ors on 2 April, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
38.03crrevn
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2003
The Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd., Gautam Nagar,
Post. Kolapewadi, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
Through its Managing Director ...Petitioner
versus
1. Vasant Gajanan Deokar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Bhausaheb Baburao Abhale,
Age: 41 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Santosh Fakira Landage,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
4. Fakkad Tatyaba Kale,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Bhagawat Shankar Jorvekar,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Vighanadi, Tq. Sinnar,
Dist. Nashik
6. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
.....
None for the applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent/State
.....
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:44:49 :::
38.03crrevn
-2-
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This is part heard matter. When the matter is called out,
none appears for the applicant. With the assistance of learned A.P.P.,
this Court proceeded to decide present revision application against
the acquittal.
2. Perused the original record.
3. It is required to be noted that the respondents-accused
are charged for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 477-A,
411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant
herein is the complainant. It is claimed that the complainant, Chief
Security Officer in Co-operative Sugar Factory, noticed that the
respondents-accused made conspiracy by taking away coal used for
the purpose of firing boiler meant for manufacturing paper in sugar
factory and sold the same to accused No. 5.
4. Pursuant to the complaint, offence came to be registered
on 29/12/1990 against the accused persons and charge was framed
against accused Nos. 1 to 4 vide Exhibit-46 and against accused No.
5 vide Exhibit-52 on 04/09/2000. Trial against accused No. 6 was
38.03crrevn
separated.
5. In support of prosecution case, in all nine witnesses
were examined, i.e. PW-1 Dnyanba Tukaram Bhagat, employee
working in Raw Material Division at Exhibit-66, PW-2 Arjun Bhimaji
Tambe, a trainee watchman at Exhibit-68, PW-3 Madhav Sukhdeo
More, security person at Exhibit-71, PW-4 Dnyanoba Bhagwant,
Account Clerk at Exhibit-72, PW-5 Dattatraya Punjaji Chavan,
Cashier at Exhibit-73, PW-6 Vijaykumar Maruti Kasale, Clerk at
Exhibit-74, PW-7 Shivaji Rajaram Wabale, Assistant Accountant at
Exhibit-78, PW-8 A.S.I. Suresh Haribhau Raut, who has reduced the
complaint in writing at Exhibit-83 and PW-9 P.S.I. Karale, the
Investigating Officer, at Exhibit-84.
6. The documentary evidence as are taken into account are
complaint at Exhibit-85, occurrence report at Exhibit-86, seizure
panchnama at Exhibit-87, xerox copy of the report of the sugar
factory regarding the outgoing and incoming of the vehicles at Article-
A, xerox copy of acknowledgment slip dated 26/12/1990 regarding
Truck No. MWP-1355 at Article-B, weighing register of sugar factory
at Article-C. The statement of accused recorded under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure are at Exhibits-88, 89, 90, 91 and 92.
38.03crrevn
7. It was expected of the prosecution to establish, pursuant
to the allegations in the complaint, that accused Nos. 1 to 4 have
entrusted the property to accused No. 5, for which, there was a
domain of the complainant factory.
8. It is noted that the complainant was not examined before
the Court below as he was indisposed. PW-1 Dnyanba, in his
evidence stated that after the incident in question happened, he
reported the same to the General Manager and submitted report
regarding the same. The report speaks of submission of cash
payment slip, acknowledgment slip etc. However, it is required to be
noted that the said documents are at all not produced on record. The
documents Articles-A, B and C as discussed above, which were
produced, are not original but photostat copies. In view thereof,
offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code is not
established.
9. PW-2 Arjun, panch witness to the seizure panchnama,
turned hostile. No other witness was examined so as to prove the
seizure panchnama. As such, seizure of material itself was not
proved.
10. It is further required to be noted that PW-3 Madhav,
38.03crrevn
security person has failed to identify accused No. 2 though it is
claimed that accused No. 2 was occupying truck in question carrying
load of coal from the factory and was witnessed by him. The other
witnesses have failed to prove the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Apart from above, it is required to be noted that there is delay of 3
days in lodging F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer has also failed to
investigate the issue as regards quantity of coal procured from
Mahalaxmi Coal Co. Nagpur and receipt thereof in the complainant
factory.
11. In the background of above, in my opinion, the judgment
of acquittal is rightly recorded by trial Court. As such, no case for
interference is made out. The revision application fails and stands
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]
Tupe/02.04.16
