RAHUL BALASAHEB VYAWAHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State.

(2.) For convenience, I reproduce the order dtd. 02/02/2023 passed by this Court, while granting interim protection to the appellants during pendency of this appeal:

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while opposing the appeal submitted that though the entire consideration towards the sugarcane crop has been credited to the account of appellant No.1, the share of respondent No.2/complainant has not been transferred/paid as promised. It is the allegations of respondent No.2 that he was cultivating the entire portion of land belonging to the appellants of which the benefit to the extent of ... " share in the proceeds was to be handed over to respondent No.2. It is submitted that in the present case, the offence under Ss. 420 , 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act") is clearly attracted. It is submitted that the poor labourer has been cheated and hence the appeal should be dismissed.