LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-184

YASHWANT BAPU PARIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On November 24, 2006
YASHWANT BAPU PARIT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has been convicted by JMFC in Regular Criminal Case No. 490 of 1984 for the offences punishable under sections 408, 467, 471, 477-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment and order, he preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions [judge, Kolhapur. Additional Sessions judge partly allowed the appeal and conviction recorded against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under sections 467, 471, 477-A and 201 of Indian penal Code were set aside. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under section 408 of Indian Penal Code. Conviction passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate so far as these provisions was concerned was confirmed. Against aforesaid orders, present criminal revision application has been filed.

(3.) Prosecution's case in brief is as under : petitioner was working as an Honourary Secretary in Kumbhi Kasari Sugar factory Workers Union Mandal at Kuditre, Tal :karvir during the year 1977-78 to 1980-81. During the course of audit which has taken place in the year 1993 certain irregularities were noticed and accordingly, complaint was filed against the petitioner and other persons. It was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation of Rs. 12,000/- by maintaining false record. It was alleged that the said false record had been prepared to show that loan had been sanctioned to the members of the Society to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- each and amount of Rs. 150 had been credited in their name towards amount of share of society and remaining amount was shown to have been paid to them. However, in fact, none of these persons were paid loan amount either in cash or cheque. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, which order was partly set aside by the sessions Court. However, convictibn under section 408 was confirmed and he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 250 and in default six months R. I.