DWARKADAS RAMESHWAR PALDIWAL Vs. SATYANARAYAN MAKHANLAL GADODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Deo, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 and Shri Badar, A. P. P. for non-applicant No. 2 State.

(2.) THE present Criminal Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1990 whereby the order of conviction and sentence dated 9-3-1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana in Regular Criminal Case No. 5 of 1987 came to be set aside and the non-applicant No. 1-accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN order to understand the controversy in question, it will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which has resulted in prosecution of non-applicant No. 1 for the offences charged. Shri Dwarkadas Rameshwar Paldiwal (complainant) is a partner of firm M/s. Kewalram Rameshwar which deals in petrol, diesel and kerosene, having its petrol pump at Shegaon and Murtijapur. Non-applicant No. 1-accused along with two others were working at the relevant time with the same firm in the capacity of Cashier-cum-Clerks. Non-applicant No. 1 in the capacity as a Cashier-cum-Accountant was receiving the sale proceeds from the various branches of the firm everyday. The accused was keeping its accounts. As per the practice of the firm, the accounts maintained by non-applicant No. 1 were checked at the end of the accounting year at about the time of Diwali. In the year 1983, it was noticed that non-applicant No. 1 had maintained false accounts and shown less amount on credit side by making a wrong total and misappropriated the difference of Rs. 1,15,363. 18 ps. during the period from 16-11-1982 to 4-11-1983. During the same period it was also found that on some occasions, the accused had shown more amount than what was actually received, on making wrong totals, which was Rs. 18,967. 61 ps. deducting the excess amount, which was wrongly shown as received from the total amount, which was actually received but not accounted for, on making wrong totals. It has been alleged that the accused has misappropriated the actual amount of Rs. 96,395. 57 ps.