AJAY PARMAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2009, passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, convicting the applicant accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant i.e. original accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 962 of 2006 alongwith accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have committed robbery on 5.5.2005 between 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. they snatched cash of Rs. 300/-, mobile phone and stolen Maruti Zen car. The complainant P.W.I Suryakant Lokhande, is a driver of one Nandkishor Gupta the owner of the car. When complainant had gone to Santacruz in hazi Niwas building to take his owners wife, the accused Nos. 1 to 4, kidnapped him and thereafter changed the number plate of Maruti Zen Car and thus all these accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 365, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 1 and present appellant (accused No. 2) were charged for the offence of receiving stolen property i.e. Maruti Car under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) All the accused were acquitted from all the charges except accused No. 2 i.e. present appellant accused was convicted for the offence under Section 411 read with 34 of the Indian penal Code. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that though the robbery has taken place on 5.5.2004, thereafter, appellant accused who was Police Officer at the relevant time as Detection Officer, M.I.D.C. Police Station, was caught by Anti Corruption Bureau on 24.02.2006 when a trap was led and appellant accused was arrested while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. The trap was led in the Maruti Car in which appellant accused was found. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant accused was using the said car. He was in possession of the said car. He got that car painted and he also changed number plate of the said Maruti car. It is the case of prosecution that the true number of the Maruti car was MH-02-KA-4788 and changed number of the car when it was found at the time of trap with the appellant accused was MH-04-BN-5041, thus, it is the case of the prosecution that as appellant accused was found with the said car. The chasis number and engine number after verification were found as one and the same which was of the stolen car at the time of commission of robbery and therefore, the applicant accused was charged under Section 411 and was convicted for the same offence. Hence this appeal.