SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 2466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
R.M. Borde and P.R. Bora, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Vs.
Narayan Nimbaji Wakchaure – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2014
Decided On : 14-07-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.G. Karlekar, APP
For the Respondents:S.T. Shelke, Advocate

The prosecution must prove the elements of the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

Headnote:

Corruption - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, Section 409, Section 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(c)

Fact of the Case:

The respondent accused, a Senior Clerk, was charged with preparing and encashing bogus bills without appropriate entries, leading to misappropriation. The prosecution failed to prove the accused's custodianship of the relevant documents and the preparation of bogus bills.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's custodianship of the documents and the preparation of bogus bills, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's custodianship of documents, preparation of bogus bills, and misappropriation of funds.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution's failure to prove the accused's custodianship of documents and the preparation of bogus bills led to the acquittal.

Final Decision: The appeal challenging the acquittal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P.R. Bora, J.

1. The State has filed the present appeal challenging judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Sangamner, in Special Case No. 2/2000 delivered on 14.6.2013. In the aforesaid Special case, the respondent herein was prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent accused from all the offenses charged against him. The acquittal so recorded is challenged in the present appeal.

2. Prosecution case in brief:

The respondent accused was serving as the Senior Clerk in the Accounts Department in the Office of Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer (Land Development), Sangamner, during the period between 1.7.1982 to 16.12.1985. The Bill Register and Token Register were entrusted to him and used to be in his custody. The respondent accused used to prepare the abstract bills and after following the prescribed procedure, used to submit the said bills to Sub Treasury Office and further used to get encashed the said bills from the Bank. It was alleged that in the period between 5.7.1985 to 16.8.1985, the respondent accused prepared three Bogus bills; first, on 5.7.1985 for Rs. 70,000/-; second, on 23rd July, 1985, that too of Rs. 70,000/-; and third bill on 16.8.1985 for amount of Rs. 50,000/-; submitted the said bills in the Sub Treasury Office, Sangamner, and got encashed the aforesaid bills from the State Bank of India without taking appropriate entries of the said bills in the Cash Book or Token Register, and thus, misappropriated the said amount. The FIR in this regard was lodged on 24.11.1990 by one Sopan Dattu Shelar, the then Soil Conservation Officer (Land Development), Sangamner, at Police Station, Sangamner. On the basis of the report so lodged, the crime was registered against the respondent accused for the offenses under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC and Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was set in motion. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded statements of several witnesses and collected several documents. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The case was then registered as Special Case and was forwarded to the Special Court for trial. The learned Special Judge framed charge against the respondent accused on 28.7.2003. The charge was explained to the accused whereupon the accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and placed on record several documents. The defense of the respondent/accused was of total denial and false implication. The learned Special Judge, after having assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought before him, acquitted the accused for want of sufficient evidence.

3. Shri S.G. Karlekar, learned A.P.P., submitted that though the prosecution has adduced cogent and sufficient evidence, proving the culpability of the accused in commission of the offenses charged against him, the improper appreciation of the said evidence by the learned Special Court has resulted in acquittal of the respondent accused. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the respondent accused was the custodian of the Cash Book, Bill Book and the Token Register. He further argued that the prosecution has also proved that the respondent accused prepared the Bogus Bills and encashed the amounts of the said bills without taking entries of the said bills in the concerned registers and thus, misappropriated the said amount. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Special Court on the point of sanction is also erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Learned A.P.P. to












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top