1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2000 Anita Manohar Ghosalkar ...Applicant (Orig. Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent None for the Applicant Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The applicant has constantly remained absent. The application has been previously adjourned. 2.The applicant has been convicted of theft of moneys in the house she worked as a maid servant. The applicant is stated to have purchased a ownership flat No.34 for a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- in Radhika Apartment, Nallasopara, District: Thane. The applicant has been convicted of the offence of committing theft by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 14th Court, Girgaon, 2 Mumbai. In the Appeal filed by the applicant being Appeal No.87/1996 the learned Sessions Judge has considered the circumstantial evidence upon which her conviction has been maintained. 3.The applicant was a full time employee of one Bharat Patel and his wife. She was in care and custody of their residential flat. It was the prosecution case that they kept certain amounts in the cupboard in their house. The complainant, wife of Bharat Patel was a Social Worker, she was in Japan during which period it was realised that certain amounts were missing from the cupboard. 4.During the course of investigation the flat of the accused was searched. It was found unoccupied and vacant. It was got sealed by the Andheri Police Station. It has been noticed by the Courts below that though the applicant earned Rs.800/-p.m and had also taken petty loan of Rs.200/-, which could not be returned by her, she had purchased a flat worth Rs. 1,73,000/-. 5.The defence put up by the accused was of her false implication as the husband of the complainant had an affair with her. That defence has been disbelieved. 3 6.The accused had also contended that there was delay in lodging the complaint. However, it has been considered that from time to time theft of certain amounts took place systematically and periodically , which was eventually detected on 9th October 1992 and thereafter between two dates on 11th October 1992 the complaint was lodged. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the circumstance against the applicant is the possession of a large amount of Rs.1,73,000/-for purchase of a flat by her. He has also taken into account the statement of the applicant herein (accused) recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in reply to question NO.25 that the accused was working in Breach Candy and from her personal savings and from savings of her mother she had collected Rs.1,73,000/-. No details of about the period during which such large amount was collected was given. In fact the statutory presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable in this case. The Court would be required to presume the existence of a fact which is likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of this particular case. Under illustration (a) of the aforesaid Section a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has 4 received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 7.In this case a large amount of Rs.1,73,000/-, which the applicant could not account for, in her 313 statement must raise the presumption that the flat purchased by her at Nallasopara and taken to be then in her actual possession was from the proceeds of the theft. Consequently the conviction which has been upheld and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is seen to be correct. There is no material infirmity in the order. 8.The Revision Application, therefore, has no merit. 9.The Revision Application is dismissed. 10.It may be mentioned that under the impugned order a regular inquiry for determining the person entitled to possession of flat No.34 at Radhika Apartment, Nallasopara, Dist: Thane claimed by the applicant is ordered upon notice to the applicant herein as well as the complainant. Neither the applicant nor the prosecution has been able to inform the Court as to whether that inquiry has been completed as directed. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Registrar Judicial to the complainant. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)