RAKESH GOPAL SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two appeals, question their conviction, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 392 read with 397 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentences of imprisonment ranging from one month to seven years and fine from Rs.2,000/- to 25,000/-, imposed upon them, on conclusion of the trial of Sessions Case No.434 of 2007, before him.

(2.) The facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under;- One Ramnath Pilley, is a businessman from South India, who used to come to Mumbai for purchasing garments. On 27th December, 2006, he had come to Mumbai with cash of Rs. 15 lacs and was putting up in Adarsha Palace Hotel at Kalbadevi. He states that he had gone for purchasing garments at 8.00 a.m. on 28.12.2007. He went to the office of G. H. Agencies through whom he was making purchases and handed over cash of Rs. 15 lacs, which he carried in a brief case, to one Pratik. Said Pratik kept the cash in the drawer in his office. Then Pilley went again for purchasing mission and came back to the office of G. H. Agency at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening. When he was sitting in the office, a robber is alleged to have come and pointed firearm at the head of Pratik. Another miscreant also joined the first robber. They tied up the persons who were in the office and carried away Rs. 15 lacs in cash. Ramnath gave report to the police whereupon an offence was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) Two appellants were arrested on 10th and 14th January, 2007 respectively. In the course of investigation, police recovered one Mobile phone of Nokia Company, a wrist watch of titan company, one gold ring, and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- from appellant Rakesh under a memorandum. On 15th January,2007 at the instance of appellant Ramchandra, police seized cash amount of Rs. 6,32,000/- upon disclosure by appellant Ramchandra. Police had sent the accused persons to jail, where they were subjected to test identification parade. They were allegedly identified by eye witnesses to the incident. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was sent up.