Bombay High Court
Mr.Rama S/O Sampatrao Chakole vs State Of Maharashtra,Thr.Police ... on 28 November, 2018
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
REVN197.06.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.197 OF 2006
APPLICANT: Mr. Rama S/o Sampatrao Chakole,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.: Service,
N.M.C. Nagpur, R/o Plot No.1410,
New Nandanwan Layout, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, Sadar,
Nagpur.
Shri P. S. Tidke, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent.
CORAM: M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATED: 28th NOVEMBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present revision is against the judgment of conviction awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Criminal Case No.701/1999. The appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Criminal Appeal No.25/2003 against the said conviction. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:20:13 ::: REVN197.06.odt 2/5 judgment of conviction of the trial Court is maintained.
2. The case of the prosecution against the applicant (herein after called as the accused) in short is as under:
The accused was working as Garden Inspector with Nagpur Municipal Corporation. His duty was of preparation of muster roll of daily wages workers, distribution of wages of daily wages workers, supervision of cutting of grass of sewage farm, Bhandewadi accepting the amounts from the contractors who are given tenders for cutting grass and depositing all these amount in the account of the Nagpur Corporation. The entire record in respect of these transactions used to remain in the custody of the accused.
3. In the month of May, 1993 when Nareshchandra Shrikhande, the Garden Superintendent was verifying the Daily Collection Register, he noticed some overwriting on the amounts shown to be deposited with the Corporation by the contractors. He suspected regarding some entries made in the DCR. He made enquiry with the Bank of Maharashtra where the amount deposited with the Corporation was required to be credited by the accused. The bank informed that as against the entry made in DCR in respect of receipt No.71506 for Rs.7662/-, the amount of only Rs.3662/- was credited in the account of the Corporation by the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:20:13 ::: REVN197.06.odt 3/5 accused. Thus, there was misappropriation of Rs.4000/- in respect of the amount of one receipt. During further scrutiny, Shri Shrikhande found that the accused who was custodian of this record had removed the record from the office including the counterfoils of the receipts issued by him to the contractor. The Superintendent called the said contractors and he found that in respect of receipt No.71506, the contractor had paid the amount of Rs.7662/-. The amount which was collected from the contractors was not deposited by the accused in the account of the Corporation. On the report of Shri Shrikhande, the crime was registered. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The charge was framed. The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses to prove its case. The learned trial Court concluded that the accused has misappropriated the amount of the Corporation and thereby convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. The said judgment is confirmed by the first appellate Court.
4. Heard Advocate Shri Samarth for the applicant - ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:20:13 ::: REVN197.06.odt 4/5 accused. He has submitted that the accused has retired. He is 70 years of age. He is mentally not fit. He has submitted that looking to the situation he has already undergone jail sentence more than one month, therefore, a lenient view may be taken while deciding the lenient view.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent who has strongly supported the impugned judgment.
6. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial Court and also the first appellate Court, it is clear that the accused was working as a Garden Inspector and he was authorized to collect the amount from the contractors. It is proved by the evidence of Shri Shrikhande and the contractor before the trial Court that the accused received Rs.7662/- but deposited only Rs.3662/- and misappropriated the amount of Rs.4000/-. It was the defence of the accused that he has not received total amount of Rs.7662/- but it was proved that he has received the amount but not deposited some part of the amount.
7. Looking to the amount and the age of the accused, to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed:
(1) The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. (2) The conviction for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Chief Judicial ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:20:13 ::: REVN197.06.odt 5/5 Magistrate, Nagpur dated 3-3-2003 and confirmed by the Court of Session, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.25/2003 dated 17-07-2006 is maintained. However, the accused is convicted for the period already undergone in Jail. Accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- before Chief Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days, if he fails to pay fine amount within a period of 15 days then he shall undergo jail sentence for a period of one year.
After depositing amount of fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8000/- be given to Nagpur Municipal Corporation towards compensation.
(3) The criminal revision application is disposed of.
JUDGE //MULEY// ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:20:13 :::