1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2007 Kantilal Khemji Bheda ... Applicant. Vs. Milind Shripal Bendke & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Amit Borkar, for the Applicant. Mr.Sachindra B. Sheetye, for Resondent No.1 & 2. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for State/Respondent No.3. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the first informant who alleged commission of offences punishable under section 420, 379, 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the first and the second Respondents. 2 According to the applicant he was doing business of purchase and sale of jaggery at Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur. The applicant was having an account with the Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Shahupuri, Kolhapur. Before the applicant left for Mumbai to meet his ailing brother, a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was the credit balance in the said bank account. 2 3 On 2nd April, 1997 he received phone call from his son who informed him that someone had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from his bank account. Initially, the Applicant had suspicion against two office managers. Lateron, investigation was carried out and the first and second respondents were chargesheeted. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Magistrate has acquitted the first and second respondents. 4 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant is that investigating officer did not step into witness box. He submitted that initially the applicant was suspecting that his managers were guilty of commission of the offence. However, after investigation was carried out, chargesheet was filed against first and second respondents. He submitted that the investigating officer could have deposed about the involvement of first and second respondents in the offence. It is his submission that as the investigating officer has not examined himself, a case is made out for remand. 5 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the impugned judgment. Even if the investigating officer would have been examined, he could have deposed to the investigation carried out by him. He could have proved some of the documents in his evidence. His evidence was not helpful to prove the guilt of the accused. Apart from 3 investigating officer the prosecution examined five witnesses including the applicant. None of the witnesses could bring any material on record to show involvement of first and second accused. 6 In view of this factual position, the prayer made by the advocate for the applicant for remand cannot be accepted. There is no reason to interference with the impugned order of acquittal. 7 Revision petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE.