{1} Cri. Rev. Application No.123/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2011 Sharad Ramdas Pathak & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for the applicants Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 23 rd August 2011 PER COURT: 1. The applicants, by this revision application, have questioned the correctness of the judgment dated 25.05.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.58/2008 by which the Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by CJM, Jalgaon in RCC No. 686/2002 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for decision afresh with directions to the prosecution to examine the necessary witnesses. 2. The present revision application is an exception to the {2} Cri. Rev. Application No.123/2011 general rule. It appears that the applicants and respondent No.2 were tried for an offence punishable u/s 409 and 218 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were public servants and were working in the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records and it is alleged that during their service tenure, they have embezzled huge amounts by showing wrong entries. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that though there was voluminous documentary evidence on record and statements of number of witnesses were recorded during the investigation, only 6 witnesses were examined before the trial court and the material witnesses were not examined, which resulted into acquittal of the accused. The State had questioned the correctness of the said acquittal by preferring Criminal appeal No.58/2008 before the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. 3. The Appellate Court, in the impugned judgment has observed thus - 10. The record of the trial court further shows that during investigation a large number of documents were collected and seized, several witnesses were also examined by the Investigating Agency but then the prosecution has examined only six witnesses and on 24.07.2006, very casually the Assistant Public Prosecutor has made a submission in writing vide Exh. 34 of closing it’s evidence. The pursis closing evidence does not make a mention of any reason for closing the evidence and for giving up the other witnesses but it simply states, “prosecution hereby submits the evidence closed Pursis.” {3} Cri. Rev. Application No.123/2011 11. Such an intimation given by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was also acted upon by the learned Trial Court to proceed further with recording of statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It may be mentioned that the learned Trial Court also lost sight of the fact that the entire evidence which ought to be placed on record, whatever may be the ultimate result, is not being tendered by the prosecution. It further needs to be noted that a huge amount of public money is involved which is in lakhs of rupees in respect of which, according to the prosecution, criminal breach of trust was committed. If without tendering the entire evidence such prosecutions are allowed to terminate then that amounts to a great miscarriage of justice. In all fairness let there be the entire evidence on record which is always subject to the judicial scrutiny and devolution, according to Law, let the final decision come out of it. 12. Thus, I feel that in exercise of power under Section 386 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order of acquittal and by remanding back the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to the prosecution to produce the entire evidence for the just and proper decision of the issues involved in the case.” 4. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the Appellate Court has specifically observed that though during the investigation large number of documents were collected and seized and statements of several witnesses were recorded during the investigation, yet only some witnesses were examined by the prosecuting agency, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court has specially observed that in exercise of {4} Cri. Rev. Application No.123/2011 powers u/s 386 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. 5. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has urged that the accused are old aged persons and their service benefits have been withheld due to pendency of the trial and inspite of their acquittal they are deprived of the pensionary benefits. It is further urged that the trial court, considering the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused and hence it is urged to allow the revision application and confirm the order of the trial court by setting aside the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.58/2008. Per contra, learned APP supported the impugned judgment and urged for dismissal of the revision application. 6. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court can also exercise the supervisory powers vested in this Court u/s 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the observations of the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment that though there was bulky evidence and though statements of many witnesses were recorded during the investigation the same was not brought before the trial Court, which amounts that the prosecution has failed to bring the available evidence on record and hence the matter requires to be remanded back to the Trial Court with directions to the prosecution to place all the evidence on record. In my opinion no fault, much less no perversity, is noticed in the {5} Cri. Rev. Application No.123/2011 impugned judgment. In such circumstances, therefore, and in view of the supervisory powers u/s 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order remanding the matter to the trial court needs to be upheld. In the premise, the present revision application deserves to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, the present criminal revision application is dismissed. 8. It is, however made clear that considering the age of the accused and the long pendency of the trial, it is imperative to expedite the trial and a time bound schedule needs to given for disposal of the trial. Therefore, learned CJM, Jalgaon is hereby directed to expedite the hearing of Regular Criminal Case No. 686/2002 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 9 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Learned CJM is further advised to conduct the trial on day to day basis till its final disposal. With these directions the criminal revision is disposed of. Trial court need not be influenced with the observations made in this order and dispose of the trial in accordance with law on its own merits. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn123-11