..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2007 SAF Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Dinesh Tiwari, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.C.K.Pendse, Adv. for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st August, 2008. DATED : 1st August, 2008. DATED : 1st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 & 4-orig.accused and the learned APP for respondent Nos.1 & 2 State. 2. The complainant PW-1 Kuppuswami Narsinham was serving with Saf Yeast Company as a General Manager. He filed complaint against the respondents under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC. The said complaint was numbered as C.C. No.814/P/2000. In the said case the respondent-accused came to be acquitted, hence, this revision. 3. The case of the complainant is that the unit of ..(2).. the company at Chiploon requires furnace oil for running the said unit. The said furnace oil was purchased from Mumbai and it was transported through the vehicles of the respondent company i.e. respondent Nos.3 & 4 Brijda Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.. The case of the complainant is that somewhere in August, 1998 to June, 1999 on checking it was found that 12 tankers of furnace oil were not received at the Chiploon unit. Thus, the case of complainant is that the accused who are running Brijda Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. have misappropriated the furnace oil of the company and thus offence came to be committed by them. 4. The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses. PW-1 Kuppuswami is the complainant who is the Manager of the complainant company which is situated at Chembur, PW-2 Mr.Abhyankar is the Purchase Manager serving with the company at Chembur, PW-3 Mr.Tanvidkar was working as an Administrative Manager in the Chiploon Unit and PW-4 Tambe was working as Accounts Officer of the company. The FIR in the present case has been lodged on 21.8.2000. The evidence of PW-2 shows that he came to know about the mischief somewhere in the year, 2000 when the ..(3).. police officers called him for recording his statement. Looking to the evidence of this witness, it is seen that it does not disclose any material against any of the respondents-accused. His evidence does not reveal any lacuna in despatch and delivery of furnace oil prior to lodging FIR. As far as the evidence of PW-3 Shri.Tanvidkar is concerned he has admitted that no mischief was found in the Chiploon unit and no mischief was reported to him in respect of delivery of furnace oil in Chiploon Unit. Thus, the evidence of both these witnesses does not implicate the respondents in any manner. 5. The evidence of PW-4 Mr.Tambe who was the Accounts Officer dealing with sale and purchase of oil shows that he prepared the cheques and bills for purchase of furnace oil as per the orders placed. This witness has also admitted that prior to the complainant lodging the FIR, he was not aware of any mischief. Thus, his evidence is not sufficient to prove that the respondent-accused has committed any offence. 6. As far as the evidence of PW-1 is concerned, he has admitted that he has not received any complaint ..(4).. from staff including the staff of Chiploon Unit. He has stated that he has not found any mischief in relation to Brijda Roadlines Pvt.Ltd. in transporting the furnace oil prior to the lodging FIR. According to the complainant the offence has taken place between August, 1998 to June, 1999. However, the FIR has been lodged after considerable delay on 21.8.2000. No plausible explanation has been given for the said delay in lodging the FIR. On consideration of the evidence of the four witnesses which are examined, it is seen that there is no sufficient material to prove the complicity of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the crime. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that opportunity ought to have been given to the prosecution to examine other witnesses including the officers of BPCL Company as well as the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that the trial Court did not give sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to examine the relevant witnesses. And therefore this caused prejudice to the complainant. He further submitted that the investigation in the present case has not been properly conducted and therefore serious prejudice ..(5).. has been caused to the complainant. Lastly it was submitted that the charge has not been properly framed by the trial Court and this has also caused grave prejudice to the complainant. 8. In respect of charge, the learned Advocate for applicant has submitted that the charge ought to have been framed under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Essential Commodities Act as the case pertains to furnace oil and the said charge has not been framed by the trial Court. It is seen that the charge was framed on 21.11.2005. The case came to be disposed of on 21.4.2006. If according to the complainant the charge was not properly framed, the same ought to have been challenged at that stage. However, it is seen that no application had been preferred before the trial Court at any stage for adding or altering the charge in any manner. Thus, this contention cannot be taken into consideration today at such a belated stage. 9. As far as the contention relating to the investigation not being proper is concerned, the same cannot be considered at this stage because the applicant has approached this Court against the order ..(6).. of the trial Court dated 21.4.2006 whereby the respondents came to be acquitted under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC. The scope of the Court while considering the Revision Application is rather limited. This Court can only go into the legality, propriety and correctness of the order impugned before it. On going through the order dated 21.4.2006, it is seen that the Court has correctly considered all the facts before the Court and thereafter decided the matter. 10. As far as examination of the officers of BPCL and other witnesses including the Investigating Officer are concerned, it is seen that the main four witnesses of the complainant company, including the complainant have not brought out in their depositions any material against the respondents-accused. The complainant company has to first make out a case against the respondents-accused and the other witnesses would only corroborate the case of the complainant company. When four witnesses examined by the complainant company have not brought out any material to implicate the applicant, in my view, examination of any other or further witnesses would not improve the prosecution case. ..(7).. 11. Looking to all the above facts, no case is made out for interference. Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)