1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2000 Bhimrao Manik Shirsat .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. B. G. Tangsali for the Applicant Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the State CORAM : R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 12th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant is the original accused. He was charged, convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs.4,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months. 2. It is the prosecution case that, complainant’s sister was to take admission to the course of D.Ed. Of People’s Education Society at Vashi in the year 1992. The complainant’s sister who was to be admitted to the Course as well as her father and brother 2 met the accused. The accused took Rs.30,000/- as donation to be paid to the Education Society. This was paid in the presence of one Kalpana Chaudhary who was a teacher and who had taught the children of the accused also. Upon the application for interview, the complainant’s sister was called for interview on 25.09.1992. She successfully completed the interview. She was told to pay fee of admission. She and her father informed the Society members interviewing her that she had already deposited Rs.30,000/- with the accused in the name of the Society. The board of interviewers denied receipt. She was given time to pay fees by 5.00 pm on 28.09.1992. They went to question to the accused. The accused avoided to meet them. The complainant’s sister therefore could not secure admission to the D. Ed. College. The accused assured to make payment and sought to time. He did not make payment. The complaint was registered under C.R. I 138/97 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 22.03.1997. The accused came to be arrested and charge came to be framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant, his sister and his father. The prosecution initially did not examine the teacher who was present when the amount was given. The Court, 3 in exercise of his powers under Section 311 of the Indian Evidence Act, has examined the teacher Kalpana Chaudhary. She was the eye witness to the incident. She was an independent witness aside from the other family members. She was a natural witness since she was teacher of the children. Her evidence is therefore most important. 4. Once the evidence is accepted, the prosecution case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The accused is taken to have collected the amount, not for himself that on behalf of college. He was required to pay that amount in the college as admission fee. He represented to the complainant his sister and father that he had paid the amount. They learnt that, at the time of interview, that the amount was not paid. They have given time to pay the admission fee. The accused orally assured them that he will make payment. The accused failed and consequently the interviewee who was selected in the interview could not procure admission to the college and hence, could not complete the course of D. Ed. 5. It is seen that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant, his sister and father to make payment of the fees to him instead of the college. He did not deposit that amount in the 4 college as admission fee. Consequently he made unjust enrichment for himself and caused unjust loss to the interviewee. 6. The findings of the competent Courts below are correct. There is no material irregularity. The revision application is dismissed. 7. The applicant/accused Bhimrao Manik Shirsat shall forthwith surrender before Senior Inspector of the relevant police station failing which he shall be taken in custody to serve the sentence imposed upon him by the learned 2nd Joint J.M.F.C., under his order dated 02.12.1998. (R. S. DALVI, J.)