1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. f CRI.REVISION APPLN. NO.80 OF 2008 (SHANKAR PANDURANG TIRANKAR. ..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.I.Shaikh h/f. Shri Mirza, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 04, 2008. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby he maintained applicant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code, recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal. The applicant had been tried for misappropriating a sum of Rs.37,600/-, which he had received from the several depositors having recurring deposit accounts in the Post Office, in his capacity as Counter Clerk in the Post Office. His modus-operandi was to make entry in the Pass-book of the depositors and hand over the Pass-book to them but avoid to make corresponding entry in the Journal. At the trial when the learned Magistrate put up to the applicant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the admission of the applicant at Exh. 132 that he had misappropriated the amount, he simply stated, in response, that he did not remember as the matter was nine years old. 2 There was no suggestion to the witnesses examined at the trial that document at Exh.132 was obtained in duress or by using undue influence or by holding out any inducement. 2. In view of this, the findings, having recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that his client has deposited a sum of Rs.37,600/- but could not show any receipt of having deposited any amount. He could not also point out any reference to such deposit in the two judgments. In view of this, the revision application is rejected. JUDGE RR.