1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 130/2001 Moganraj s/o Devraj Pille, Age : 56 years, Occu. Sweeper, R/o Sadar Bazar Bhingar, Tq & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through A.P.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. ...Respondents. Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. Date : 30th September, 2010 JUDGEMENT:- 1 This Criminal Revision application is filed against concurrent finding of the Courts below that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. 2 The facts leading to this litigation are as under. The applicant / accused who was a civilian employee of the Military establishment at Ahmednagar, was given temporary charge of Cinema Projector Store and Operating room, from 15/06/1994. The articles kept in the room belonged to the Indian Army. The accused thereafter, started remaining absent from the duty. With the result, the cinema projector room remained closed. The higher authorities therefore, decided to take away the charge of the room from the applicant. They called him and asked him to hand over the charge to another person. Despite the message, the 2 applicant did not report on duty and did not hand over the charge of the room to another employee. With the result, the higher officers thought it fit to open the room in absence of the applicant but in presence of an independent panchas and all they took inventory of the articles in the room. On 26/12/1994 this inventory was taken. A stock register was kept in the room and on checking the stock register, it was found that many articles kept in the room were missing. The applicant was therefore, prosecuted under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. 3 The defence of the applicant was that he was not in charge of the room. He said, he was simply a sweeper and could not have been entrusted with the room which contained valuable articles. However, the evidence clearly established the fact that the prosecution witness No.6 one Dhanda who was previously in charge of the room, was transferred in March, 1994 and so he handed over the charge of the room to the applicant, as per the order issued by the prosecution witness No.5, one Major Naydu. The prosecution No.6 Dhanda in clear terms stated that when charge of the room was given to the applicant, an inventory was taken of the articles and such inventory was found matching with the stock register. The applicant thereafter signed the stock register in receipt of the articles. The defence of the applicant on this point was that this handing over the charge was done in hurry and he was not given time to verify the contents of the room. He said, the prosecution witness No.6 Dhanda was transferred and was in hurry to go away and in that hurry, he forced to applicant to take the charge of the room. 4 Both the Courts below rejected this defence because the prosecution could show that proper procedure before handing over of the charge to the applicant was followed. Another leg of the defence of the applicant was that prosecution witness No.6 3 Dhanda was responsible for the loss of articles in the room because he was in charge of the room earlier. He pointed out that the Military conducted Court-Marshal against prosecution witness No.6 Dhanda. He suggested further that in order to save prosecution NO.6 Dhanda from the Court-Marshal proceeding, a false complaint was lodged against him and he is made scapegoat. This defence also was rejected by the Court below giving cogent reasons. 5 The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, despite this clear case, asserted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the earlier in charge of the room had entrusted the property in the room to the applicant. As said above, this factual aspect has been properly proved in the lower Courts and there is hardly any scope in denying this fact at this stage. So, the reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Tilak Ram reported in 1969 Cri. L. J. 682 is of no avail. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Versus State of Hariyana reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 11658. On facts, this judgment can be distinguished and it is not helpful to the applicant. The Criminal revision application should therefore, fail. ORDER a) Criminal revision application stands dismissed. b) Issue warrant of arrest against the applicant. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/ok