Back
1999 CRI. L. J. 438
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
T. K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.
Arun Parshuram Sutar, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1989 with Cri. Appeal No. 78/89 and 1/89
Decided on : 31-8-1998
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - SECTIONS 409, 420, 468, 467, 465, 471 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 5(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 5(D) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - APPELLANT, A SARPANCH, CONVICTED OF FORGERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - COURT FINDS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH CONVICTION - SENTENCE REDUCED CONSIDERING THE DELAY IN TRIAL AND THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SERVED SOME TIME IN JAIL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sarpanch of a Grampanchayat, was convicted and sentenced for forgery and misappropriation of funds. He opened a bank account in the name of the Grampanchayat and deposited a cheque issued by a company towards house tax. He then withdrew the amount from the account and closed it. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was correctly identified by a bank official and that the evidence of a witness who was familiar with the appellant's signature was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also found that the modus operandi followed by the appellant indicated his culpability.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was correctly identified as the person who opened the bank account and withdrew the money. 2. Whether the evidence of the witness who identified the appellant's signature was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. 3. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was correctly identified by a bank official who knew him as the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat and that the evidence of the witness who identified the appellant's signature was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. 2. The court held that the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive and reduced it considering the delay in trial and the fact that the appellant had already served some time in jail.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, confirmed the conviction, and reduced the sentence to the period already served by the appellant. The appellant was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 within two months, in default of which he would have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
U/sec. 409 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to suffer R. I. for six months.
U/sec. 465 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer further R. I. for three months.
U/sec. 467 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 500/-in default to suffer further R. I. for six months.
U/sec. 471 I.P.C. R.I. for six months.
U/sec. 5(1)(c) r.w. sec 5(2) of R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-in de
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 S
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
