[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramesh Laxminarayan Bangad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4390
{1} REVn 152 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2024
Ramesh s/o Laxminarayan Bangad
Age : 72 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Gandhi Chaman, Old Jalna,
Taluka and District Jalna. ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent
.....
Advocate for Applicant - Accused : Mr.N.S.Ghanekar
APP for Respondent - State : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 28 JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 02 FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionist, a convict for offence under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) hereby challenges judgment and order dated
01-06-2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna
while deciding the Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2002 arising out of
judgment and order dated 12-09-2002 passed by learned 5 th Joint
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in SCC No.26 of 1998.
2. Police Station, Kadim Jalna, entertained complaint lodged by
{2} REVn 152 OF 2024
one Vishwanath Narayan Kale contending that Ramesh Laxminarayan
Bangad formed a Society namely "Sanjog Sahakari Gruh Nirman
Sanstha". Said Society had 46 members. Society borrowed loan
from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Finance Corporation") and
extended loan for construction of houses to its members.
Complainant too was a member of the said Society. According to
complainant, he had paid Rs.11,444 to accused by way of installment
towards repayment of loan, but including his installment none of the
installments paid by way of repayment were deposited by accused
with Finance Corporation and rather said amount was utilized by
accused for his own purpose and therefore, on the strength of above
complaint, Police registered crime bearing no.283 of 1997 for offence
under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. On completion of
investigation, accused was chargesheeted and after framing charge
by learned trial Court, accused was tried by learned 5 th Joint Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jalna vide RCC 26 of 1998 which ended up in
acquittal from charge of Section 420 of the IPC, but conviction came
to be recorded for offence under Section 406 of the IPC.
Feeling aggrieved by above order of conviction, accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2002 questioning the
{3} REVn 152 OF 2024
sustainability of the above order of trial Court. After hearing both
sides and on re-appreciation of the evidence, learned First Appellate
Court was pleased to partly allow the appeal confirming conviction
for offence under Section 406 of the IPC, but instead of sentence of
Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, it is modified to Simple
Imprisonment for one month and rest of the order was kept intact.
Aggrieved by the above, accused has preferred instant revision
by invoking provisions under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
3. Mr.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant would submit that
both learned trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to appreciate
the evidence in correct perspective. According to him, the only piece
of evidence, which is relied by both the Courts below was evidence of
PW7 Narayan Keshavrao Ingle, Special Auditor, but according to him,
answers given by this witness in cross-examination are not properly
comprehended and appreciated. According to him, only on report
prepared and submitted by PW7, a Auditor, guilt has been fastened.
Taking this Court through evidence of PW7, he pointed out that this
witness was unaware about actual affairs of the Society. That, mere
difference noted during Audit is directly attributed to be mis-
{4} REVn 152 OF 2024
appropriated amount. He pointed out that, it was admitted by
complainant in cross-examination that he had received receipts for
the amount repaid by him and moreover, there was no distinct
evidence to shows that revisionist was actually beneficiary of the
money, which allegedly went unaccounted. He pointed out that,
there is no dispute that Society was the borrower and therefore,
holding accused responsible for repayment was unjustified. He
pointed out that accused had adduced evidence of defence witness
DW1 Madhav Kishan Chaudhary, who is none other than the Officer
of Finance Corporation, who had agreed that responsibility of
repayment was of Society and not of accused. For above reasons, he
questions both the judgment and orders of conviction passed by the
trial Court and one passed by learned the First Appellate Court by
urging to allow the revision.
4. Learned APP supported judgment and orders of both trial
Court and First Appellate Court by stating that on meticulous
appreciation, charge of criminal breach of trust is held to be proved.
According to him, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgments so as to interfere in this revision.
{5} REVn 152 OF 2024
SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
5. PW1 Vishwanath Narayan Kale, complainant, deposed that he
knew accused, who was chairman of "Sanjog Sahakari Gruh Nirman
Sanstha" constituted to provide houses to the members. That, he
also was a member as he wanted a house. He further deposed that
accused was chairman and his wife was builder. According to him, in
respect of construction cost of the house, an amount of Rs.40,000/-
was paid by him and remaining was obtained by way of loan from
the Finance Corporation in the name of each members. He testified
that he deposited Rs.40,000/- with accused and even other members
deposited said amount. Remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- was loan
aid extended by Finance Corporation to the society. That loan
amount was received by the accused. He further deposed that loan
was to be repaid in installments. He started making repayment to
accused of which accused initially used to issue receipts under his
signature and he has placed said receipts on record which are at
exhibits 32 to 74. According to him, in total Rs.60,000/- was repaid
towards loan installments with the accused. He claims that accused
issued him notice on 31-12-1996 conveying due of Rs.11,433.64 in
his name and therefore, he deposited the amount on 05-02-1997, but
he was again served with notice that too by the Finance Corporation
{6} REVn 152 OF 2024
on 19-09-1997 regarding dues of Rs.11433. Therefore, he
approached Manager of Finance Corporation, but he was told that
said amount has not been received by Finance Corporation and
therefore, notices exhibits 75 and 76 are despatched. According to
him, similar notices were received by other members and then they
realized that amount paid by them to accused by installments was
not at all further deposited by accused with the Finance Corporation
and therefore, he lodged report. He also stated that District Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies was approached, who constituted
team for audit, which revealed that accused has misappropriated
huge amounts.
Though above witness is subjected to cross-examination, above
averments of borrowing loan, paying it in installments to the
accused, has remained intact. In cross-examination, to a suggestion
he answered that amount towards repayment of installment was
given to accused as loan was obtained through him. He volunteered
that loan was given by Finance Corporation through Society.
Suggestion is given that interest has been paid over the loan amount.
Such cross-examination itself shows that transaction of loan is
not denied. Witness also volunteered in cross-examination that
amount is paid to accused and even receipts were received for the
{7} REVn 152 OF 2024
same. Thus, testimony of PW1 complainant has virtually remained
unshaken.
6. Similarly, PW2 Vitthal Pawar, PW3 Anant Deshpande, PW4
Suresh Patil, PW5 Sudhakar Nemane are all the members of the
Society and they like PW1 have testified about borrowing loan,
accused to be Chairman of the Society, they repaying loan by
installments and initially receiving receipts from accused. They all
have placed on record said receipts issued by accused under his
signature. PW8 Hanuman Sitaram Patil (P.I.) is the Investigating
Officer.
7. Star witness, as pointed out for prosecution, is Special Auditor
PW7 Narayan Keshavrao Ingle, who in his evidence at exh.279
testified about he being engaged by District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Society, Jalna for re-audit of the accounts of Society from
02-02-1990 to 31-03-1997. After conducting audit, he has tendered
report under his signature exh.282 and according to him, it was
revealed that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed by Finance
Corporation to the members from the year 1992 to 1998. He
elaborated that members deposited Rs.21,21,992/- with the accused,
{8} REVn 152 OF 2024
whereas accused only deposited Rs.11,97,849.20 with the Finance
Corporation and as such, he did not deposit remaining amount of
Rs.9,24,143.58. He categorically deposed that he noticed that the
said amount was misappropriated and not deposited by accused. He
stated that findings of Auditor regarding misappropriation are at
page 8 and total misappropriated amount is Rs.11,29,277.95.
Above witness is also extensively cross-examined, wherein
suggestion given that accused was not Chairman has been flatly
denied by him. He is put question on the recital of agreement to
sale. He admitted that receipts were issued to members of Society of
the amount which they deposited towards repayment of loan to the
Finance Corporation. He also answered that he has seen bank
accounts of Society. He admitted that figure of Rs.9,24,143.58 is the
difference between the amount credited with the Finance
Corporation and it is reflected in the accounts of the Society.
8. This court is called upon to exercise revisional powers i.e.
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before
appreciating contentions raised in revision, it would be appropriate
to spellout judicial precedent on the point of scope and object of
revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
{9} REVn 152 OF 2024
While exercising powers under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this court
is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or illegality in the
findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers are to be
exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are
clearing errors on the face of order or there is failure and non
compliance of law. Re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings
are patently perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional
court. Law regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of
judgments. Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark
judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9
SCC 460 is relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed
and quoted as under :
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well -
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a
token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
{10} REVn 152 OF 2024
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its own merits."
9. Therefore, in the light of above settled position, the limited
scope for this court is to test whether there is patent illegality, error
or perversity at the hands of trial court followed that of by learned
First Appellate Court.
10. The sum and substance of accusation is that accused, who was
admittedly a Chairman of housing Society namely "Sanjog Sahakari
Gruh Nirman Sanstha" was also shown to be husband of the builder
who had undertaken the construction activity. There seems to be a
tripartite agreement between said society, its members and the
builder. There is no dispute that loan was borrowed by Society from
Finance Corporation and as such the members, who are borrowers,
were expected to repay the loan in installments. Precise accusations
of complainant is that he regularly paid installments to accused
towards the installments of repayment of loan and was expected to
{11} REVn 152 OF 2024
deposit it with the Finance Corporation. He specially contended that
he had paid Rs.11444 as demanded and even receipt to that extent is
received but still he was served with multiple notices by the Finance
Corporation regarding dues towards his end and therefore, when he
made enquiry, it emerged that accused to whom the installments
were paid, to be further deposited, has failed to do so and it was the
accusation that he had used it for his own purpose. Affirmation was
also got done by engaging Special Auditor, who in his report detected
above misappropriation and irregularities. Substantive evidence of
PW1 complainant is already reproduced above. Other witnesses, who
are also members of the Society, have deposed on similar lines
regarding they repaying installments towards repayment of loan,
receiving receipts also under the signature of accused, but still being
served with demand notice from Finance Corporation. Evidence of
these witnesses has not been disturbed or dislodged in cross-
examination. It is tried to be suggested that each of the members has
received receipt and therefore, it is an acknowledgment of payment
of installment, however, it has come on record through the Auditor,
who conducted audit of the Society that, an amount of
Rs.21,21,992.78 was deposited by the members for a period from
1992 to 1998, however, only amount of Rs.11,97,849.20 was paid
{12} REVn 152 OF 2024
back to the Finance Corporation and as such amount of
Rs.9,24,143.58 being not deposited and undeniably accused is shown
to be the custodian of all the deposits,
11. In the cross-examination, suggestions are given that extra
housing activity was conducted, but except giving such suggestion,
there is no specific denial by accused about not receiving
complainant's installment of Rs.11,444/-. On the contrary, he has
issued receipts time to time, which are also placed on record, which
bears his signature, which strengthened the case of complainant that
amount repaid by way of installments, was with accused and he was
custodian of the same and when he was expected to further deposit it
to the Finance Corporation, he having failed to do so, the only
inference that follows is that he has retained the amounts of not only
of complainant but of other members.
12. It seems that the funds are diverted for making payment to
Sanjivani builder of which accused is said to be not a Proprietor but
only husband of said builder. Admittedly, by issuing receipts, accused
has admitted the entrustment of money and he had domain over the
same. By not depositing the said amount with the Finance
{13} REVn 152 OF 2024
Corporation, there is breach of trust. There is both ample oral and
documentary evidence regarding offence under Section 406 of the
IPC. There is nothing to show that after receiving the amount,
accused took steps to deposit the amount with Finance Corporation.
By admitting issuance of receipts, which is brought by way of
suggestion to the witnesses, entrustment of money is indirectly
admitted. None of the receipts issued in favour of complainant,
which are at exh.32 to 74 and 81 to 94 are denied. When there is
acknowledgment of money from complainant and other members,
and the same not being further deposited with Finance Corporation,
inference of embezzlement naturally follows.
Evidence of PW7 is a value addition to the prosecution story.
He is an independent witness and rather an expert Auditor, who
carried out special audit and has tendered report regarding notice of
the irregularities in the affairs of the Society.
Thus, here, all essential ingredients for attracting offence
under Section 406 of the IPC are indeed available in the evidence of
prosecution. Consequently, judgment and order of trial Court as well
as First Appellate Court cannot be faulted at. Revisionist is failed to
point out on merit what was the illegality or irregularity or error in
the manner of appreciation while drawing conclusion of guilt so as to
{14} REVn 152 OF 2024
interfere in the impugned judgments and orders in the revision.
Hence, revision deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, following
order is passed :
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
13. On pronouncement of this Judgment, learned Counsel for
revision petitioner submits that he intends to approach the Hon'ble
Apex Court against the today's order and therefore, he urges to stay
the effect and operation of today's order on the point of surrender for
a period of six weeks.
14. Learned APP opposes the same.
15. Considering the above request made by learned Counsel for
revision petitioner, to enable him to approach the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the effect and operation of today's order is stayed for a period
of six weeks.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
