SURESH NARAYAN KHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mirza, learned A. P. P. for respondent-State.

(2.) APPLICANTS have preferred this revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 19-7-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1998 whereunder the judgment and findings of conviction and sentence against the applicants dated 6-4-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim in Criminal Case No. 1/1997 for offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of I. P. C. was under challenge. The applicants were sentenced to undergo S. I. for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- on one court and S. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- on second count.

(3.) I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Magistrate at the trial. I have also perused the record. So far as the applicant no. 2 - Datta is concerned in my opinion the evidence though may be of recovery is sufficient. In this connection as the evidence of the Investigation Officer and Panch witness shows that applicant - Datta was interrogated on 9-10-1996 and in the presence of the panch witness Mahendra and Shamsunder he disclosed that the cash box was kept in the field of one Chipade and then he took them to that field and took out the cash of Rs. 7000/- from the heap of straws of Moong Crop and the said cash was seized. He also made disclosure that the cash box No. 994/3 and another cash box bearing No. 994/2 were buried and both were recovered from the field of one Dhule and the same came to be seized under Panchanama Exhibit 23. It is undisputed a fact that in pursuance of the statement of disclosure made by the applicant - Datta, the property including cash came to be recovered and the same has been later on seized. This property seized at the instance of applicant - Datta was identified before the court by the witness Subhash Agrawal (P. W. 7) who happened to be a Cashier in the office and it was on the basis of initials which were put on the currency notes, the trial court as well as the appellate court has rightly accepted this evidence of recovery at the instance of applicant - Datta. The very fact that the property that came to be seized at the instance of the applicant was identified to be the property of which the theft was committed, particularly cash boxes recovered at the instance of applicant - Datta, though the evidence in nature of circumstantial evidence, is found to be incriminating a circumstance and establishing complicity of applicant no. 1 Datta in commission of the offences. Therefore, I do not find any fault in conclusion and finding recorded by the courts below in holding the applicants no. 2 Datta guilty for the offences with which he was charged. As such so far as the applicant no. 2 Datta is concerned, the appeal merits no consideration.