STATEOF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANIK CHIMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence of the accused for offences under sections 408, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused was working as a salesman in charge during the period 1.7 1967 to-30-6-1968 in the shop belonging to the Jangle Kamgar Co-operative, Society, Shirpur, District Thana. As such functioriery, he was entrusted with the work of receiving the sale proceeds of the shop and also to receive goods on behalf of the Society and to maintain various registers of the Society. According to the prosecution, the accused forged various entries in the register and embezzled a sum of Rs. 9521/. This fraud was detected by the auditor and thereafter an investigation was carried out by the Police. After the investigation was complete, the accused was charge sheeted on 29-12-1972 for the offences under sections 408 and 467 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate thereafter framed a charge under sections 408, 468 and 477A I.P.C. After the charge was framed, the accused pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate on the said plea convicted the accused for the said offences, bate bound him over in the sum of Rs. 1000/- for a period of three years for good behaviour under the provisions of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (-hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by his order dated 15-4-1974. It is this order against which the State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence.

(3.) There is no dispute that the accused when he committed the said offence was hardly about 18 years of age and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 6 of" the said Act. However, the error which was committed by the learned Magistrate was, in not follbwing the procedure laid down in sub-section (2 ) of section 6; of the said Act viz, that of calling for the report from the Probation Officer and considering the same before he proceeded to give the accused the benefit of the. provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. Instead of sending the mattter back to the learned Magistrate, I had by my , order 1-12-1976, called for the report of the Probation Officer to consider whether the accused should be given the benefit of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. The report dated 20-12-1976 sent by the District Probation Officer, Thana, has been placed, before me today and from the said report it appears that there is no reason why the accused should not get the benefit of section 6(1) of the said Act. On the contrary, the Probation Officer has recommended that the accused be given an opportunity to improve himself, He has no previous misconduct to his record.. After the death of his father, when he was hardly 17 years old, the responsibility of maintaining the entire family fell on him and that probably led him astray. He has been working since, at other places and reports of his neighbours and employers about him are very good and encouraging. In the circumstances, I find that there is no interference called for with the order passed by the learned Magistrate binding over the accused in the sum of Rs.1000/. for a period of three years for good behaviour. I therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the order passed by the trial Court against the accused.