Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Sunil Jagannath Tibe - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2010
Decided On : 05-05-2021
Criminal Misconduct - Theft of Documents - IPC 461, PC Act 13(1)(d)(ii) - 461, 381, 13(1)(d)(ii), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a police constable, was convicted for theft of documents from the CBI office. The documents were related to a case involving accused no.3. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others conspired to steal and destroy the documents to benefit accused no.3.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant stole the documents for the benefit of accused no.3. The court also noted that there was no evidence of the appellant's knowledge of the specific contents of the stolen documents. The court acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was involved in the theft of documents to benefit accused no.3. The court also considered the lack of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge of the document contents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement in stealing the documents for the benefit of accused no.3. The lack of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge of the document contents led to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction and allowed the appeal. The judgment convicting the appellant was overturned, and the bail bonds furnished by the appellant were cancelled.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment in Special Case No.117 of 2004 delivered by the Special Judge for CBI on 18th February 2010, thereby convicting him for offence punishable under Section 461 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, undergo SI for 30 days. By the very same judgment, the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'P.C. Act") and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, undergo SI for 30 days. Substantive sentences being directed to run concurrently. On the judgment being pronounced, the appellant was directed to be taken into custody.
2. On the appeal being filed and registered, on 12 th March 2010, it is admitted. The order imposing sentence, being suspended, the appellant came to be released on bail on furnishing fresh bond. Resultantly, when the Appeal is heard, the appellant is on bail.
3. The appellant working as Police Constable came to be charged along with three accused persons on 8th September 2006, he being arraigned as accused no.2 in the C.R. registered on a complaint being filed by one Mrs. Jyotsna Rasam, API attached to the DCB CID, the complaint allege that she was investigating an R.C.No. 1-B/2003 which involved the accused no.3 Mr.Pravin Bharatan and in connection with the said case under investigation, she had obtained some documents from the officials of the Bank and some incriminating documents were seized from the house of accused no.3, with regard to the loan facility availed by him from Canara Bank. Mrs.Rasam (PW 9) asserted that she had received documents from the official of Canara Bank under receipt memo and all the documents collected on various dates were put by her in a cupboard in her office situated at Kitab Mahal, 3rd floor, D.N. Road, Mumbai. The cupboard was located in the room known as Inspectors room and the key of the cupboard which was a steel almirah was retained by her. On 5.11.2003, she had taken out the documents from the cupboard for preparation of a final report and she had put the documents back in the cupboard, locked the cupboard and retained the keys with her. On the following day i.e. 6th November 2003, she was in the premises of her office during 10.30 am to 15.00 hours and opened the cupboard on two occasions and locked the same on its use. After taking out papers with regard to other matter at 15.00 hours, when she opened the cupboard for locating the document regards to the case of accused no.3, they were missing from the cupboard and though the entire office was searched, the documents were not traceable.
4. Consequentially, on 8th November 2003, when information was received from reliable source that accused no.1 who was working as clerk and the accused no.2 (present applicant) working as constable with the CBI office were on night duty on 5th November 2003 and that they had prepared duplicate keys of the cupboard and stolen the documents with regard to R.C.No.1-E/2003. Complaint was filed and an FIR was registered. Complaint alleged that she gathered information from reliable sources and prepared list of the documents which were stolen, the documents stolen being 465 in number.
It is in the backdrop of this complaint lodged by PW 9, the appellant was arraigned as accused no.2 along with one clerk working in the office of CBI, Shreejeev. Further, Pravin Bharatan who was an accused in RC No.1-E of 2003 along with his accomplice one Mr.Hiten Ashwin Abiani were also arraigned as accused persons and charge-sheeted.
5. The Special Judge, framed the charge against the accused persons. The accused nos.1 and 2 were charged for committing offence punishable under 461 read with Section 34 of IPC, since in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused persons during the night of 5th November 2003, they engaged services
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
