RAMNATH LAXMAN PATHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

(2.) THE revision application arises from the judgment and order dated 28-1-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1987 and by the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Shrirampur in Criminal Case No. 233 of 1984. By the said order, the Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under sections 468, 477-A and 418 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 750/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(3.) THE charge against the petitioner was that during the period between 13th and 19th September, 1984 while the petitioner was working as Muster clerk in relation to the work of Chari No. 35 under the Employment Guarantee Scheme at village Karegaon, with an intention to cause monetary loss to the government made some false entries in the Muster Roll No. 31808 by showing persons as labourers beyond the number of labourers who were actually employed at the site. It was the case of the prosecution that though actually 139 labourers were employed at the site, the petitioner had marked 244 labourers to be present and employed at the site in the said Muster Roll. It is further case of the prosecution that on a complaint in that regard being made by one Munde, the Tahsildar of Shrirampur, along with some other officers visited the site, seized the muster roll, verified the presence of the labourers and the discrepancies in the number of labourers present and those shown as present in the Muster Roll and after completing the investigation filed the complaint. The trial Court on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution held the petitioner to be guilty of offence for which he was charged and in the appeal against the same the Lower Appellate Court refused to interfere in the order of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner.