STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RODBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in R.C.C. No. 409/1991.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, the evidence of the P.W. 1 brought on record by the prosecution corroborates with the spot panchanama which is prepared by the P.W. 3 and I. O. is sufficient to convict the respondents/original accused Nos. 1 to 3. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted that, the necessary inspection was carried out as stated by the P.W. 1 in his examination in chief. Relying on the statement of the P.W. 1 in examination in chief, the learned A.P.P. for the State would submit that, the respondents by showing more students in the bill which was submitted to the P.W. 1 have received the excess amount of Rs. 34,735/for the period June 1989 to May 1990 and Rs. 19,445/for the period June 1990 to August 1990. Relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 about the inspection carried out in the school, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respective respondents submitted that, so far respondent No. 1 is concerned, he is nowhere connected with the alleged submission of bill or receiving any amount from the Government. So far respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, except the evidence of P.W. 1 there is no evidence which supports the prosecution case. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 1 is also untrustworthy, since he is involved in other 16 cases as an accused. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further submitted that, the respondent/accused No. 1 has no concern with that amount, as the cheque is not in his name. The P.W. 1 is involved in 16 criminal cases for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of the amount as admitted by him, therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 is not trustworthy and reliable. He further submits that, the allegation that the students shown as a bogus by showing them backward class is devoid of any merits since their certificates are produced on record. The statements of their parents are not recorded and there is no explanation for the same.