In a criminal appeal against acquittal for offenses under IPC sections 406 and 204 regarding misappropriation of Diwali Fund contributions, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the acquittal order was not perverse.
The appeal against the order of acquittal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/5
apeal469.91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 1991
The State of Maharashtra
…. Appellant.
V/s
Sahebrao Ramchandra Wagh, Plot No.55, Kherwadi, Bandra (E), Bombay 400051
….. Respondent.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Appellant. Mr. S.P. Kadam for the Respondent.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M. S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE: 3rd December, 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)
2/5
apeal469.91
Esplanade dated 12/4/1991 whereby the Respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 406 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.
3/5
apeal469.91
4/5
apeal469.91
witnesses. It is submitted that the Trial Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that entrustment was not established. It is submitted that in the Written Statement, accused had admitted that Receipts were given by him to all these witnesses. He, therefore submitted that entrustment having been proved, it was not open for the learned Magistrate to hold that no case was established by the prosecution.
5/5
apeal469.91
It is a settled position in law that power of the High Court when it exercises its jurisdiction in appeal against acquittal is very limited. It is quite well settled that this Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is established that view taken by the Trial Court is perverse or finding which is given by the Trial Court is not borne out by the record.
12 In this particular case, we are of the view that the Trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record and thereafter has arrived at a conclusion that no case is made out against the accused. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the said judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. Appeal is dismissed.
(M. S. SONAK, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
B.D. Pandit PS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in a criminal appeal.
Whether the partial admitting of the charge by the accused establishes entrustment of funds for the purpose of conviction.
Whether the Trial Court's view on evidence is perverse or not borne out by the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra v. Malabari Narayan VaradarajanReferred¶34
State of Maharashtra v. Malabari Narayan Varadarajan
Sukhdeo Jyotirao Pandit & Anr. v. Dr. Hari OmlalReferred¶34
Sukhdeo Jyotirao Pandit & Anr. v. Dr. Hari Omlal
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Sahebrao Ramchandra Wagh
V. M. KANADE
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
