ARUN PARSHURAM SUTAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant along with another accused charged under Sections 409, 420, 468, 467, 465, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for criminal misconduct under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in following manner:-

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellant as a Sarpanch of Shiravane Grampanchayat and continuing as such during the period from 19-8-78 to 14-10-1978, accused No. 2 Jagtap was working as a peon of the said Grampanchayat during the relevant time, P. W. No. 3 Kanha Raghunath Umatol was working as a gram sevak of the said Grampanchayat during 1976 to 15-6-1978. When he was transferred P. W. No. 5 Yeshwantrao was appointed as gram sevak from 20-6-1978 and continued till 23-11-1978. From 23-11-1978 onwards one Mahadu Mhatre P. W. No. 6 was continuing as gram sevak till 25-5-1981. One Raghunath Mhatre was working as a clerk of the Grampanchayat during the relevant period. Shiravane Grampanchayat had its account with two Banks and being operated jointly as Sarpanch and Gram Sevak. The appellant was elected as a new Sarpanch and consequently he was authorised to operate the Bank account of the Grampanchayat, and a Resolution of the Grampanchayat was passed on 3-6-1978, which is exhibited as Exh. 37 authorizing him to operate the bank account jointly with Gram sevak Umatol. The said Umatol worked only till 15-6-1978. That became necessitated for the Grampanchayat to pass a Resolution on 20-6-1978, Exh. 40, authorizing the new Gramsevak Yeshwantrao to jointly operate the Bank accounts. According to the prosecution, a demand notice for house tax for Rs. 6,130. 95/- for the year 1977-78 was made on Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited within the local limits of the Grampanchayat. In response to that demand notice the factory made on payment of tax by cheque No. 417897 dated 14-8-1997 drawn on Mercantile Bank. After the cheque was issued in the name of Grampanchayat a receipt acknowledging the payment was issued by the clerk of the Grampanchayat. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 by hatching out a conspiracy between themselves in furtherance of their common intention committed misappropriation of the amount of Rupees 6,130. 95/- by getting the cheque encashed and misappropriated the amount. The modus operandi followed by the accused, according to the prosecution, as follows :-

(3.) ON 19-8-1978 the appellant approached P. W. No. 1 Joshi who was at the relevant time agent of the Parsik Bank, Belapur Branch for opening an account in the name of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Shirvane and obtained necessary forms. Thereafter on 22-8-1978 the appellant Sutar came to the bank with accused No. 2 Jagtap. He told P. W. No. 1 Joshi that accused No. 2 Jagtap was going to be appointed as Secretary of the Grampanchayat. After making this representation both the accused filled in necessary documents for opening the Saving Account in the bank and deposited Rs. 5/- and the bank account was opened as account No. 250, in the name and style of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Shirvane. At the time of opening the account, the appellant presented two documents, one purported to be the copy of the Resolution of the Grampanchayat dated 30-5-1978 electing the appellant as Sarpanch. Another document was purported to be the copy of Resolution No. 3 dated 3-6-1978 passed by the Grampanchayat for opening an account with Parsik Bank and also authorizing the Sarpanch to open the said account. According to the prosecution the said Resolution dated 3-6-1978 for opening the account with Parsik Bank was bogus and it was never passed. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the said Resolution was forged with a motive of committing fraud and misappropriation.