SUKHRAM Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 15th December, 2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joint Court, Gondia, in Summary Criminal Case [SCC] No. 917 of 2005, by which the learned Trial Judge convicted the revision applicant of offence under Sec. 124 of the Bombay Police Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days, and the order to forfeit to the State Govt., the balance amount, namely the property in the crime in the sum of Rs. 13,64,297 -00, and confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2006, vide Judgment and Order dated 11th April, 2007, the applicant filed the present Revision Application.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that Radheshyam Meshram, Police Sub -Inspector [PW 2], raided the house of the revision applicant along with Rajesh [PW 3] and found the cash in the sum of Rs. 24,50,000 -00 in the drawer of his bed, which was seized under Exh.13 by charging the applicant of the offence under Sec. 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The charge -sheet was filed and the summary trial was held. Relying on the evidence of Rajesh Muneshwar [PW 1], Radheshyam Meshram, Investigating Officer [PW 2] and Rajesh [PW 3], Panch witness, the Court recorded conviction under Sec. 124 of the Bombay Police Act and made the aforesaid order. The Appellate Court in appeal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision applicant and confirmed the Judgment and Order of the Trial Judge. Hence this Revision Application.

(3.) In support of the Revision Application, learned counsel for the Revision Applicant invited my attention to the finding recorded by the Trial Judge in para 7 of his Judgment and Order and contended that the Trial Court did find that it is for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Sec. 124 of the Bombay Police Act, namely either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. According to Mr. Narnaware, perusal of the evidence as well as findings recorded by the courts below shows that none of them have come to the conclusion about the property being stolen. He, therefore, submits that then what remains is the property fraudulently obtained. According to him, it is not even the case of the prosecution as to how and when the applicant obtained the property fraudulently and the only case of the prosecution is that the cash amount of Rs. 24,50,000/ - was found in the house of the applicant and nothing more. According to him, there is not even an investigation on this aspect; but the courts below have recorded the conviction only on the ground that the revision applicant did not disprove that the property was not obtained fraudulently, thereby throwing the burden on the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution, when, as a matter of fact, initial burden of proof was not discharged by the prosecution. Mr. Narnaware then contended that reading of the impugned Judgments itself shows that the Income Tax Department had made an assessment order in respect of the said cash amount of Rs. 24,50,000/ - and recovered tax as well as penalty in the sum of Rs. 10,85,703 -00 and, therefore, obviously, the balance amount after deduction of income tax and penalty belonged to the revision applicant. But then, there is an order of forfeiture of amount to the State Govt., which cannot be supported by any provision of law. He, therefore, submitted that it is the Revision Applicant who is entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 13,64,297 -00 and, thus, prayed for reversal of the Judgments of the courts below.