1 Appln 562-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.562 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Tukaram Mhadu Repe .Respondent Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for the Applicant  State None for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 20TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against appellate Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur reversing conviction of the original accused Tukaram Mhadu Repe for the offence punishable under Sections 408 & 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Judicial Magistrate F. C., Radhanagari. I have gone through the 2 Appln 562-2011 appellate Judgment with the help of the learned APP, who has also made available for my perusal a copy of Judgment of the trial Court. In the appellate Judgment, first 7 paras have been devoted to narration of the prosecution story, defence and the points for determination. The learned Judge recorded three points for determination and in para 8 took them up for discussion together. Paras 9 to 17 & 18 begin with the refrain, Mr.Hilge, the learned Advocate for the appellant has argued. I have tried to unsuccessfully fathom the reasons which prevailed upon the learned Judge to deal with the contentions raised in these paragraphs. The Judgment gives the impression that the learned APP, who was appearing for the State had chosen to remain silent, since the Judgment does not reflect as to whether he had argued anything at all. Then the learned Judge in paras 19 & 20 held that it was necessary to show that not merely false entries in the books of accounts 3 Appln 562-2011 but that such false entries were made with the intention to defraud. The learned Judge held that no entrustment with the accused was proved and therefore, the offence under Section 477-A is not proved. It seems that as corollary the learned Judge also held that the offence punishable under Section 408 is not made out. Considering this, Judgment of the appellate Court and also considering well reasoned Judgment recording conviction delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Radhanagari, leave granted. 3. Admit. 4. Call for R & P. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)