The central legal point established in the judgment is that harassment for further repayment by money lenders can lead to conviction under Sec. 32 and Sec. 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT

1. Both these Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dtd. 3/3/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Niphad in Sessions Case No. 116 of 2006. The Appellants (Accused Nos. 1,2,3 and 5) along with one Dattatray Hujband (accused No.4) were tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 32 and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 ('the said Act'). The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment has acquitted accused No.4 Dattatray Hujband. The Appellants have also been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The Appellant Sandeep Shinde (accused No.2) and Suresh Pacharane (accused No.5) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 32 of the said Act and they have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000.00 each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The Appellants have also been convicted under Sec. 33 of the said Act and have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant Suresh Pacharane (accused No.5) has since expired. Thus the present Appeals only survive insofar as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned.

2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: That, now deceased Shamrao Ayachit was serving as a Store Superintendent in Civil Defence Office at Nashik. He was suffering from some brain disorder. According to the prosecution Shyamrao Ayachit had borrowed various amounts from the Appellants. In particular an amount of Rs.45,000.00 was borrowed from accused Bilal Shaikh (Accused No.1) and Rs.20,000.00 from accused Sandeep Shinde (Accused No.2). The deceased had repaid the said amount along with interest. However, the Appellants were harassing the deceased for payment of further interest on the basis of blank cheques and the stamps obtained. PW-1 Swati Ayachit, who is the widow of the deceased claimed that since few days before 8/2/2006, the deceased was found to be in stress. The deceased left the house on 8/2/2006 with his daughter. He dropped his daughter at the college and proceeded for his office, however did not return home. A complaint about the deceased having gone missing was lodged with the police on 9/2/2006. On 22/2/2006, PW-1 was informed that the deceased had committed suicide in Ajinkya Lodge At Pimpalgaon Bus Stand by consuming poison. The death was reported by PW5 Sunil Akade whereupon an accidental death (AD No. 7 of 2006) was registered. PW-1 Swati Ayachit filed a complaint on 25/2/2006 on the basis of which offence at Crime No. 28/2006 was registered with Police Station Pimpalgaon, under Sec. 306 of IPC and Sec. 32 and 33 of the said Act. During the course of investigation, it was found that the deceased had checked-in in the said lodge claiming as T.N. Gavli and during the inquest and spot panchnama, it was revealed that it was the deadbody of Shyamrao Ayachit as identified by his relatives. During the course of investigation, empty bottle of poison was recovered from the spot and two suicide notes Exh.59 and Exh.60 were recovered which were sent for the examination by handwriting expert and as per report of the handwriting expert, the chits were found to be in the handwriting of the deceased.

3. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed which was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the Appellants under Sec. 306 of IPC and Sec. 32 and 33 of the said Act. The Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellants is one of total denial and false implication.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses including PW-1 Swati Ayachit and PW-3 Shivani Ayachit, who are respectively the widow and the daughter of the deceased. The Appellants did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. The l