ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present Revision Applications under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner - original accused has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment dated 23.11.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari in Criminal Case No.7411 of 1994, whereby, learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 409 of IPC and sentence to under go 5 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment, further SI for two months and convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 477A of IPC and sentence to undergo SI for one year. Learned Trial Court also ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently. The said judgment is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2001 vide order dated 14.08.2002. Hence, present Revision Application.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. The petitioner was serving as Branch Post Master in Sarbhon Paradi Branch Post Office. On 18.01.1994, Sub Divisional Inspector of Indian Post Office Chikhali visited the Sarbhon Pardi Branch Post Office for inspection and during inspection he received 17 saving bank pass book. It is alleged that the petitioner did not give slip and also not credited money of depositors in the pass book. It is alleged that the petitioner withdraw the money of the depositors from their saving account and by this act, the petitioner has misappropriated money of Rs.27,060/- of 6 depositors having saving account in Branch Post office. It is also alleged that there is breach of trust of depositors. Therefore, Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Office filed written complaint in the Navsari Rural Police Station against the petitioner.

3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined witnesses, as also produced documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in conviction as stated supra followed by imposition of punishment as above, which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that he has no papers and therefore, he could not argue the matter. It is submitted to pass necessary order. This Court has taken into consideration the grounds stated in the memo of Revision Application.

5. On the other hand, learned APP would submit that the revisional jurisdiction of the Court is very limited. This Court cannot intervene with the concurrent impugned orders until it is stand and proved that the learned Courts below have ignored the basic principles of law and its applicability to the facts of the case. He would further submit that the learned Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record. He would further submit that since there are concurrent findings of facts arrived by the learned Courts below, the finding is germane and could not be disturbed. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the Court in limited jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of IPC should not disturb the concurrent findings.

5.1. Upon such submission, learned APP would therefore submit to dismiss the revision application.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the rival sides at length and have also examined the records and proceedings and also perused the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below.

7. At the outset, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sheetala Prasad vs. Sri Kant – 2010 (2) SCC 190, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the principle in regard to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court at the instance of the private complaint. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as under :

“9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of