LAWS(BOM)-1999-3-79

MARUTI TATYABA KUMBHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 23, 1999
MARUTI TATYABA KUMBHAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application is filed by the Applicant/original accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 9th January, 1992 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Satara. By the impugned order, the appeal made by the applicant/original accused against the order of conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed by the Appellate Court, however, the sentence passed by the Lower Court was modified and the accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts of the case which are required to be stated are as follows : THE accused was working as a Gram-Sevak of Ravadi Grampanchayat, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. Complaint came to be filed by one Ramchandra Balavant Patil, Extension Officer of the Panchayat Samity against the accused that he was entrusted with public amount, that he was recovering gram panchayat tax, and that it was misappropriated by him. THE amount which was misappropriated by the accused was entrusted for the purpose of getting the electric motor repaired and for serving tea for the Panchayat meetings. However, as per the case of the prosecution, even though he was entrusted with the amount towards these expenses, instead of spending the said entrusted amount towards the purposes for which they were given, he misappropriated the said amount. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused was entrusted with some amount for the purpose of repairing of road, but the accused obtained signatures on musters which were false and misappropriated the amount. THE total amount which has been misappropriated by the accused, as per the prosecution story, is Rs. 1,317.12.Amount of Rs. 472. 50 was recovered from his salary and the remaining amount of Rs. 844. 62 was not paid by the accused, which he was bound to pay.

(3.) CRIMINAL Revision Application No.111 of 1992 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Application dismissed.