Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhansingh Lubhansingh Patil. Bombay High Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2003|
|Party Name:||The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhansingh Lubhansingh Patil|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P.|
|Judges:||S.S. Shinde, J.|
|Issue:||Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 408|
|Judgement Date:||May 08, 2017|
|Court:||Bombay High Court|
S.S. Shinde, J.
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Erandol in Regular Criminal Case No. 126 of 1990, thereby acquitting Respondent - Subhansingh Lubhansingh Patil, from the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code").
The prosecution case in nut-shell, is as under:
Original complainant Gopal Gangadhar was auditor. Audit of Sriganesh Dudh Utpadak Society Limited, at Javkhede, Taluka-Erandol was carried out by auditor D.B. Patil for the period from 1st April, 1988, to 31st December, 1988. Half yearly audit from 1st July, 1988 to 31st December, 1988 was completed on 28th February, 1989. He submitted audit report vide outward No. 90 dated 4th June, 1989. During that period, accused was Secretary of said society. His duty was to maintain register and to look transaction of the society. It was transpired while audit of the stock register that 116 gunny bags of fodder were to be there but actually 35 gunny bags were there. It means 81 gunny bags of fodder were missing and short. In presence of Chairman and panchas, panchnama was prepared. He inquired with accused. It was transpired that 81 bags were sold by accused and it was not mentioned in the Kird and entry was also not taken in sale stock register. The price of said 81 gunny bags was Rs. 10,149=30/-. One Appa Dodhu Patil was Chairman of the said society. In his presence accused admitted about the misappropriation. A notice was given to accused for recovery of misappropriation. Accused failed to deposit the amount and avoided to give undertaking. Therefore, as per directions the complainant gave written complaint in Erandol Police Station. It was registered vide C.R. No. 70 of 1990 under Section 408 of the I.P. Code. Investigation was handed over to P.S.I. He seized register and recorded statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused.
After filing charge-sheet, charge was framed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter necessary points were framed for determination, and after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, trial Court acquitted the Respondent -accused. Hence this Appeal.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, invites my attention to the evidence of PW-3 Appa Dodhu Patil, who was chairman of Ganesh Milk Produce Society at the relevant time. Relying upon his evidence...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL