Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5446 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2017
Cri. Appeal No. 161/2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Manwath,
Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani ....Appellant.
Versus
1. Vasant s/o. Bapurao Bhagwate,
Age 48 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli,
Spl. Recovery Officer, Rural Bank,
Parbhani, R/o. Lalit Kulabhawan,
Kadrabad, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Shrikrishana s/o. Bhanudas Jadhav,
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Kolha, Tq. Pathri, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
3. Manikrao s/o. Shankarrao Bhise,
Age Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Kolha, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.W. Munde, APP for appellant/State.
Mrs. V.S. Ghanekar h/f. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 02, 2017 JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.] . The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and order
of R.C.C. No. 227/1989, which was pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. The Trial Court has acquitted the
Cri. Appeal No. 161/2001
respondents of the offence punishable under sections 409 r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).
2) Respondent No. 3 was the Chairman of Kolha Krushak
Sarva Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Kolha, a Co-operative Society
registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act. Respondent No. 2 was the Managing Director of this
institution at the relevant time and respondent No. 1 was the
Manager. During audit, it was noticed that on 19.5.1981 the amount
of Rs.75,000/- was withdrawn by these accused persons from the
account of the institution and zink tin sheets worth Rs. 80807.96
were purchased from Steel Authority of India Limited. This material
was dispatched by loading it in truck No. MHT/3891. But, after
taking delivery of this material, the accused persons did not make
entry of this material in the stock register of the institution and they
misappropriated the tin sheets worth Rs.80807.96. Notice of show
cause was issued against them, but they did not reply the notice.
Then the auditor gave report to police. After making investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence
punishable under sections 409 r/w. 34 of IPC. Charge was also
framed for this offence to which the accused pleaded not guilty.
3) Prosecution examined in all five witnesses to prove the
offence. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused by holding that
Cri. Appeal No. 161/2001
actually delivery of the material to the institution is not proved by
the prosecution and as the custody of the material was not given to
the accused persons as per the record, they are acquitted. This
Court has carefully gone through the oral and documentary
evidence. Mohammad Anwar (PW 1) had given the report. He had
conducted the audit of the institution and copy of it is produced at
Exh. 42. Authorisation was given to him by District Special Auditor to
file complaint and it is at Exh. 43. The report given by him to police
is proved. He had prepared the report of particulars to fix the liability
and that document is proved as Exh. 44.
4) Prosecution examined one Pandurang Gurav (PW 2), who
was in service as Assistant Manager. He has tried to say that
accused No. 1 had collected the material from Maharashtra Krushi
Vikas Udyaog Mahamandal, Mumbai, supplier of the zink sheets and
had put his signature in token of receipt of material. He has deposed
that the value of this material was around Rs.75,000/-. There is only
this oral evidence. But such receipt or document showing signature
of accused No. 1 or any other accused is not produced on the record.
5) Mohammad Saifoddin (PW 3) was working with the
District Special Auditor and his evidence is similar to the evidence of
first informant. Additional evidence is given that order was placed by
the institution of the accused of purchase of zink sheets worth Rs.
Cri. Appeal No. 161/2001
1.85 lakh and such correspondence was made by the said supplier.
He has deposed that there was the record to show that amount of
Rs. 75,000/- was paid to supplier on 19.5.1981, but there was no
record to show that the delivery was taken and the entry of the
material was made in stock register. Thus, there is entry in the
record to show that amount was paid, but there was no record with
the society to show that the delivery of the material was given and it
was accepted by the institution or any of the three accused. There is
evidence of Investigating Officer on the investigation in respect of
the aforesaid allegations. To prove the offence punishable under
section 409 of IPC, it was necessary for prosecution to establish that
the supplier had actually given the delivery of material. When
delivery is made, the delivery challan record is prepared and one
copy remains with the supplier. Further, there must be employees, in
the godown of the institution, who were entrusted with the duty to
make entry in the stock register. They could have also said
something. Admittedly, there was no entry in the stock register and
there is no record of delivery of articles by supplier. Due to these
circumstances, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the decision
of the Trial Court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!