RAHIMA ABUSAHEB MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Kotwal and Shri Gadkari at length. Shri Kotwal, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the present petitioner has been charged for committing offence punishable under section 465 of indian Penal Code which provides for the sentence extending to rigorous imprisonment for the sentence extending to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine and the co-accused has been charged for committing the offence under provisions of section 477-A of I. P. C. which provides for the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He submitted that the original complainant is staying at Canada and is not likely to come to India, because the partition suit which was filed by him claiming the partition from the present petitioner who happens to be his real sister has been dismissed for default. He submitted further that the original complainant has not bothered anything for the said suit and therefore it is next to impossible that he would be coming for attending the prosecution in which the present petitioner has been tangled with co-accused, accountant of the said firm.

(2.) SHRI Kotwal further submitted that the accounts were kept by co-accused and being a lady, the petitioner was not expected to know much of it. He further pointed out that when the accounts were submitted before the income Tax authorities, the original complainant has also signed with the present petitioner, as real sister and that impliedly shows that he must have examined those accounts. He further submitted that the presentation of the accounts to the Income Tax authorities on 31st of December, 1986 impliedly means that he accepted the correctness of those accounts and therefore joined the petitioner in presentation of those accounts for examining and scrutiny of concerned Income Tax authorities. He further submitted that it means that the petitioner was not acting in furtherance of common intention as indicated by provisions of section 34 of Indian penal Code and therefore, the learned Magistrate was totally wrong in roping the present petitioner along with co-accused who was mainly responsible for maintaining the accounts. Shri Kotwal further submitted that the averments made in the complaint themselves shows that whenever there is to be conversation between the original complainant and the petitioner, the original complainant endorsed the request made by the petitioner and got himself dissolved from the said partnership. It also fortifies his argument as submitted by Shri Kotwal that there was no ingredient disclosed by the complainant so as to invoke the provisions of section 34 of I. P. C.

(3.) HE submitted that the petition be allowed, the prosecution which has been pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Solapur be quashed and this petitioner be exonerated from facing the said prosecution. In the alternative he prayed that her case be separated from the case of co-accused and "the learned Magistrate be directed to expedite the said trial at early date, as early as possible.