1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2826 OF 2009 Manoj Motilal Chawla ..Applicant versus Smt. Sheela w/o. Vithal Hedau & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. D. Deshmukh for Applicant. Mr. S. N. Gawade – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : The applicant has challenged the order of the Sessions Judge confirming the issue of process by the learned trial court under Section 380 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is the accused. The complainant in her complaint to the police stated that she had taken a gala under an agreement from the applicant and was running a juice center. She apparently found that her gala was broken down and goods, viz. the juice machine etc. was missing. According to her the gala was broken into by the applicant and the machine and some other goods were removed. According to the learned counsel for the applicant no case is made out for framing of charge as has been done. 2 The reply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police under The Right to Information Act is to the effect that in the complaint the respondent No. 1 has stated that the applicant removed the lock of the gala and removed the goods from the gala. This according to the applicant shows that she had knowledge that the goods were removed and therefore no offence is made out. It is not possible to accept this contention. Since the offence, if any, is consistent in removing of the goods without the consent of a person. The knowledge of the person in any way is not a mitigating factor. In any way the learned Sessions Judge has properly applied his mind to the facts of the case. There is no merit in the Application. Dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)