RAMESH LAXMINARAYAN BANGADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:4390


                                                     {1}                    REVn 152 OF 2024


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2024

                    Ramesh s/o Laxminarayan Bangad
                    Age : 72 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,
                    R/o. Gandhi Chaman, Old Jalna,
                    Taluka and District Jalna.                   ….Applicant

                                Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra                    ….Respondent

                                                       …..
                    Advocate for Applicant - Accused : Mr.N.S.Ghanekar
                    APP for Respondent – State : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
                                                       …..
                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          RESERVED ON  : 28 JANUARY, 2026
                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 02 FEBRUARY, 2026
                    JUDGMENT :


                    1.    Revisionist, a convict for offence under Section 406 of the

                    Indian Penal Code (IPC) hereby challenges judgment and order dated

                    01-06-2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna

                    while deciding the Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2002 arising out of

                    judgment and order dated 12-09-2002 passed by learned 5 th Joint

                    Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in SCC No.26 of 1998.



                    2.    Police Station, Kadim Jalna, entertained complaint lodged by
                                  {2}                       REVn 152 OF 2024


one Vishwanath Narayan Kale contending that Ramesh Laxminarayan

Bangad formed a Society namely “Sanjog Sahakari Gruh Nirman

Sanstha”. Said Society had 46 members.           Society borrowed loan

from   the    Maharashtra    State      Co-operative    Housing    Finance

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Finance Corporation”) and

extended loan for construction            of houses to its members.

Complainant too was a member of the said Society. According to

complainant, he had paid Rs.11,444 to accused by way of installment

towards repayment of loan, but including his installment none of the

installments paid by way of repayment were deposited by accused

with Finance Corporation and rather said amount was utilized by

accused for his own purpose and therefore, on the strength of above

complaint, Police registered crime bearing no.283 of 1997 for offence

under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.                  On completion of

investigation, accused was chargesheeted and after framing charge

by learned trial Court, accused was tried by learned 5 th Joint Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Jalna vide RCC 26 of 1998 which ended up in

acquittal from charge of Section 420 of the IPC, but conviction came

to be recorded for offence under Section 406 of the IPC.

       Feeling aggrieved by above order of conviction, accused

preferred    Criminal   Appeal   No.15      of   2002    questioning     the
                                 {3}                    REVn 152 OF 2024


sustainability of the above order of trial Court. After hearing both

sides and on re-appreciation of the evidence, learned First Appellate

Court was pleased to partly allow the appeal confirming conviction

for offence under Section 406 of the IPC, but instead of sentence of

Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, it is modified to          Simple

Imprisonment for one month and rest of the order was kept intact.

      Aggrieved by the above, accused has preferred instant revision

by invoking provisions under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.



3.    Mr.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant would submit that

both learned trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to appreciate

the evidence in correct perspective. According to him, the only piece

of evidence, which is relied by both the Courts below was evidence of

PW7 Narayan Keshavrao Ingle, Special Auditor, but according to him,

answers given by this witness in cross-examination are not properly

comprehended and appreciated. According to him, only on report

prepared and submitted by PW7, a Auditor, guilt has been fastened.

Taking this Court through evidence of PW7, he pointed out that this

witness was unaware about actual affairs of the Society. That, mere

difference noted during Audit is directly attributed to be mis-
                                    {4}                 REVn 152 OF 2024


appropriated amount.      He pointed out that, it was admitted by

complainant in cross-examination that he had received receipts for

the amount repaid by him and moreover, there was no distinct

evidence to shows that revisionist was actually beneficiary of the

money, which allegedly went unaccounted.         He pointed out that,

there is no dispute that Society was the borrower and therefore,

holding accused responsible for repayment was unjustified.            He

pointed out that accused had adduced evidence of defence witness

DW1 Madhav Kishan Chaudhary, who is none other than the Officer

of Finance Corporation,         who had agreed that responsibility of

repayment was of Society and not of accused. For above reasons, he

questions both the judgment and orders of conviction passed by the

trial Court and one passed by learned the First Appellate Court by

urging to allow the revision.



4.    Learned APP supported judgment and orders of both trial

Court and First Appellate Court by stating that on meticulous

appreciation, charge of criminal breach of trust is held to be proved.

According to him, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned

judgments so as to interfere in this revision.
                                {5}                   REVn 152 OF 2024


      SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

5.    PW1 Vishwanath Narayan Kale, complainant, deposed that he

knew accused, who was chairman of “Sanjog Sahakari Gruh Nirman

Sanstha” constituted to provide houses to the members. That, he

also was a member as he wanted a house. He further deposed that

accused was chairman and his wife was builder. According to him, in

respect of construction cost of the house, an amount of Rs.40,000/-

was paid by him and remaining was obtained by way of loan from

the Finance Corporation in the name of each members. He testified

that he deposited Rs.40,000/- with accused and even other members

deposited said amount. Remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- was loan

aid extended by Finance Corporation to the society.       That loan

amount was received by the accused. He further deposed that loan

was to be repaid in installments. He started making repayment to

accused of which accused initially used to issue receipts under his

signature and he has placed said receipts on record which are at

exhibits 32 to 74. According to him, in total Rs.60,000/- was repaid

towards loan installments with the accused. He claims that accused

issued him notice on 31-12-1996 conveying due of Rs.11,433.64 in

his name and therefore, he deposited the amount on 05-02-1997, but

he was again served with notice that too by the Finance Corporation
                                {6}                    REVn 152 OF 2024


on 19-09-1997 regarding dues of Rs.11433.             Therefore, he

approached Manager of Finance Corporation, but he was told that

said amount has not been received by Finance Corporation and

therefore, notices exhibits 75 and 76 are despatched. According to

him, similar notices were received by other members and then they

realized that amount paid by them to accused by installments was

not at all further deposited by accused with the Finance Corporation

and therefore, he lodged report. He also stated that District Deputy

Registrar, Co-operative Societies was approached, who constituted

team for audit, which revealed that accused has misappropriated

huge amounts.

      Though above witness is subjected to cross-examination, above

averments of borrowing loan, paying it in installments to the

accused, has remained intact. In cross-examination, to a suggestion

he answered that amount towards repayment of installment was

given to accused as loan was obtained through him. He volunteered

that loan was given by Finance Corporation through Society.

Suggestion is given that interest has been paid over the loan amount.

      Such cross-examination itself shows that transaction of loan is

not denied.     Witness also volunteered in cross-examination that

amount is paid to accused and even receipts were received for the
                                 {7}                   REVn 152 OF 2024


same. Thus, testimony of PW1 complainant has virtually remained

unshaken.



6.    Similarly, PW2 Vitthal Pawar, PW3 Anant Deshpande, PW4

Suresh Patil, PW5 Sudhakar Nemane are all the members of the

Society and they like PW1 have testified about borrowing loan,

accused to be Chairman of the Society, they repaying loan by

installments and initially receiving receipts from accused. They all

have placed on record said receipts issued by accused under his

signature.   PW8 Hanuman Sitaram Patil (P.I.) is the Investigating

Officer.


7.    Star witness, as pointed out for prosecution, is Special Auditor

PW7 Narayan Keshavrao Ingle, who in his evidence at exh.279

testified about he being engaged by District Deputy Registrar, Co-

operative Society, Jalna for re-audit of the accounts of Society from

02-02-1990 to 31-03-1997. After conducting audit, he has tendered

report under his signature exh.282 and according to him, it was

revealed that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed by Finance

Corporation to the members from the year 1992 to 1998.               He

elaborated that members deposited Rs.21,21,992/- with the accused,
                                  {8}                     REVn 152 OF 2024


whereas accused only deposited Rs.11,97,849.20 with the Finance

Corporation and as such, he did not deposit remaining amount of

Rs.9,24,143.58. He categorically deposed that he noticed that the

said amount was misappropriated and not deposited by accused. He

stated that findings of Auditor regarding misappropriation are at

page 8 and total misappropriated amount is Rs.11,29,277.95.

      Above witness is also extensively cross-examined, wherein

suggestion given that accused was not Chairman has been flatly

denied by him. He is put question on the recital of agreement to

sale. He admitted that receipts were issued to members of Society of

the amount which they deposited towards repayment of loan to the

Finance Corporation.     He also answered that he has seen bank

accounts of Society. He admitted that figure of Rs.9,24,143.58 is the

difference   between    the   amount    credited   with   the     Finance

Corporation and it is reflected in the accounts of the Society.


8.    This court is called upon to exercise revisional powers i.e.

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.               Before

appreciating contentions raised in revision, it would be appropriate

to spellout judicial precedent on the point of scope and object of

revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
                                  {9}                     REVn 152 OF 2024


      While exercising powers under section 397 of Cr.P.C., this court

is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or illegality in the

findings recorded by learned trial court.      Such powers are to be

exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are

clearing errors on the face of order or there is failure and non

compliance of law. Re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings

are patently perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional

court. Law regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of

judgments. Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark

judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9

SCC 460 is relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed

and quoted as under :


      “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
      power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
      court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
      and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
      The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
      or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well -
      founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
      to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a
      token of careful consideration and appear to be in
      accordance with law. If one looks into the various
      judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
                                  {10}                     REVn 152 OF 2024


      jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
      challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
      with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
      on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
      discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
      not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
      case would have to be determined on its own merits."


9.    Therefore, in the light of above settled position, the limited

scope for this court is to test whether there is patent illegality, error

or perversity at the hands of trial court followed that of by learned

First Appellate Court.



10.   The sum and substance of accusation is that accused, who was

admittedly a Chairman of housing Society namely “Sanjog Sahakari

Gruh Nirman Sanstha” was also shown to be husband of the builder

who had undertaken the construction activity. There seems to be a

tripartite agreement between said society, its members and the

builder. There is no dispute that loan was borrowed by Society from

Finance Corporation and as such the members, who are borrowers,

were expected to repay the loan in installments. Precise accusations

of complainant is that he regularly paid installments to accused

towards the installments of repayment of loan and was expected to
                                  {11}                          REVn 152 OF 2024


deposit it with the Finance Corporation. He specially contended that

he had paid Rs.11444 as demanded and even receipt to that extent is

received but still he was served with multiple notices by the Finance

Corporation regarding dues towards his end and therefore, when he

made enquiry, it emerged that accused to whom the installments

were paid, to be further deposited, has failed to do so and it was the

accusation that he had used it for his own purpose. Affirmation was

also got done by engaging Special Auditor, who in his report detected

above misappropriation and irregularities. Substantive evidence of

PW1 complainant is already reproduced above. Other witnesses, who

are also members of the Society, have deposed on similar lines

regarding they repaying installments towards repayment of loan,

receiving receipts also under the signature of accused, but still being

served with demand notice from Finance Corporation. Evidence of

these witnesses has not been disturbed or dislodged in cross-

examination. It is tried to be suggested that each of the members has

received receipt and therefore, it is an acknowledgment of payment

of installment, however, it has come on record through the Auditor,

who   conducted    audit   of   the      Society   that,   an    amount       of

Rs.21,21,992.78 was deposited by the members for a period from

1992 to 1998, however, only amount of Rs.11,97,849.20 was paid
                                  {12}                  REVn 152 OF 2024


back to the Finance Corporation and as such amount of

Rs.9,24,143.58 being not deposited and undeniably accused is shown

to be the custodian of all the deposits,



11.     In the cross-examination, suggestions are given that extra

housing activity was conducted, but except giving such suggestion,

there is no specific denial by accused about not receiving

complainant’s installment of Rs.11,444/-. On the contrary, he has

issued receipts time to time, which are also placed on record, which

bears his signature, which strengthened the case of complainant that

amount repaid by way of installments, was with accused and he was

custodian of the same and when he was expected to further deposit it

to the Finance Corporation, he having failed to do so, the only

inference that follows is that he has retained the amounts of not only

of complainant but of other members.



12.     It seems that the funds are diverted for making payment to

Sanjivani builder of which accused is said to be not a Proprietor but

only husband of said builder. Admittedly, by issuing receipts, accused

has admitted the entrustment of money and he had domain over the

same.     By not depositing the said amount with the Finance
                                    {13}                 REVn 152 OF 2024


Corporation, there is breach of trust. There is both ample oral and

documentary evidence regarding offence under Section 406 of the

IPC.   There is nothing to show that after receiving the amount,

accused took steps to deposit the amount with Finance Corporation.

By admitting issuance of        receipts, which is brought by way of

suggestion to the witnesses, entrustment of money is indirectly

admitted.    None of the receipts issued in favour of complainant,

which are at exh.32 to 74 and 81 to 94 are denied. When there is

acknowledgment of money from complainant and other members,

and the same not being further deposited with Finance Corporation,

inference of embezzlement naturally follows.

       Evidence of PW7 is a value addition to the prosecution story.

He is an independent witness and rather an expert Auditor, who

carried out special audit and has tendered report regarding notice of

the irregularities in the affairs of the Society.

       Thus, here, all essential ingredients for attracting offence

under Section 406 of the IPC are indeed available in the evidence of

prosecution. Consequently, judgment and order of trial Court as well

as First Appellate Court cannot be faulted at. Revisionist is failed to

point out on merit what was the illegality or irregularity or error in

the manner of appreciation while drawing conclusion of guilt so as to
                                 {14}                      REVn 152 OF 2024


interfere in the impugned judgments and orders in the revision.

Hence, revision deserves to be dismissed.      Accordingly, following

order is passed :

                               ORDER


             Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.



                                         ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                JUDGE
13.   On pronouncement of this Judgment, learned Counsel for

revision petitioner submits that he intends to approach the Hon’ble

Apex Court against the today’s order and therefore, he urges to stay

the effect and operation of today’s order on the point of surrender for

a period of six weeks.


14.   Learned APP opposes the same.


15.   Considering the above request made by learned Counsel for

revision petitioner, to enable him to approach the Hon’ble Apex

Court, the effect and operation of today’s order is stayed for a period

of six weeks.


                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                JUDGE
SPT