1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION ST. NO.12/2010 Pandurang Baburao Bagal ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Chandrakant Rustumrao More and another. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. D.A. Karnik holding for Mr. V. J. Dhage, advocate for the applicant Mr. R. J. Godbole, advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. S. D. Shelke, A.G.P. for the respondent no.2 ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 31 st August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. These are the applications for condonation of delay and leave to file Criminal Revision Application. The applicant is retired Headmaster of private school. He had lodged report with Police against the respondent no.1-Chandrakant alleging that latter had committed criminal breach of trust. The main allegation against the respondent no.1 was that he had caused loss of service books and other documents of two employees, who had made complaints about non-payment of pension amount due to non-preparation of pension proposals. 2 2. The respondent no.1 was working as Senior Clerk in the private school. It appears that he has been removed from service due to official misconduct and dereliction in duty. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 408 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code after due trial of the Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No.710/2005. The applicant filed Criminal appeal No. 25/2009, which came to be dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 378(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, Criminal Revision Application is filed in this Court along with application to condone the delay of two years, two months and twenty days. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it prima facie appears that there may be material in the contention that the delay is unintentional, the applicant was not likely to gain anything by committing delay. However, basically, it is difficult to entertain the Criminal Revision Application in view of the nature of averments made by the applicant in the F.I.R. It appears that main charge against the respondent no.1 was of gross negligence in attending the work of preparing the pension proposals of the employees. He had not committed any misappropriation of funds 3 for personal use. The only thing alleged against him was that he failed to forward the pension proposals of two employees. There was no tangible material to infer mensrea which is the essence of offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the challenge to the order of acquittal is rather on shaky foundation. 5. Under the circumstances, the application for delay condonation and the revision are dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri153.10