SHAIKH RAHIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision application, the revision applicant has questioned legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.7.2007 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2005 whereby the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed and on modification in the order of sentence, applicant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) IT was the case of prosecution that complainant Kundlik Amruta Bomble (first informant) went to grocery shop at Shivaji Nagar, Mehkar which was run by one Dilip Uttamrao. While complainant/firstinformant was purchasing grocery articles on 12th March 1996 at about 01.30 pm, the accused who stood adjacent to firstinformant, was asking for price of some grocery items to shopkeeper Dilip. When the firstinformant bought grocery items worth Rs. 500/ and put his hand in the pocket to take out cash, he found that his money was not found in his pocket and the amount of Rs. 550/ which he had kept in his pocket, was stolen. Immediately, he suspected accused and informed one Madhukar Gaikwad to question the accused about the incident of theft. At that time, accused tried to run away, but Madhukar Gaikwad held his shirt. IT was found that the accused had concealed the amount stolen beneath his banyan. The firstinformant had identified the cash as belonging to him. The shopowner then phoned to Police Station, Mehkar and accused was handed over in the custody of police. Accordingly, report was lodged about the incident at Mehkar Police Station registered as Crime No. 141/96 under Section 379 of the Indian penal Code. The Investigating Officer had seized the cash amount which was stolen, under seizure memo and also conducted spot panchanama in presence of panchas and recorded statements of shopowner Dilip as also witness Madhukar and first informant.

(3.) WITH the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I have perused judgments of the Courts below and heard learned learned APP at length.