JUDGMENT
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the correctness propriety and legality of the judgment and order of conviction recorded against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur who decided Criminal Appeal No. 32/93.
2. In view of the order which has been passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, the petitioner now stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC and stands sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further SI for six months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner was working as one of the priests. On 14.8.1981 when PW Shantappa Changonda, resident of Vijapur offered two golden eyes worth Rs. 1000/- for being offered to Goddess Mahalaxmi, the said two golden eyes were deposited by him in Devasthan office and Devasthan office dispatched those two golden eyes to the priest, the revision petitioner, for offering to Goddess under Yadi, the Revisional Petitioner accepted those golden eyes but did not return them alongwith the Yadi in the same night as per practice. He did not return those eyes even though demanded. Thus, the prosecution alleged that he had committed criminal breach of trust which was punishable in view of provisions of Section 406 of IPC.
4. The Petitioner was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur who recorded the order of conviction and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. However sentence was reduced to SI for one year and fine of Rs. 500, in default further SI for six months.
5. Ms. Patil submitted that the Revisional petitioner has expired. But, on account of that the revision cannot get abated because in view of provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”), once the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been admitted for final hearing and once the record of the lower court has been called for by this Court for examination, this Court would examine it unless it finds it to be unnecessary. Keeping in view the challenge put to the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that once the petition has been admitted for final hearing and record has been requisitioned, this court should go on examining it in the interest of justice.
6. The trial Court found that in view of the evidence of PW-1 & 2 the said golden eyes were sent to revisional petitioner alongwith a requisition list and he had accepted them for being offered to Goddess Mahalaxmi. Therefore, the entrustment has been proved as the evidence of these two witness was not shattered at all in the cross-examination and was fit to be accepted for basing the conviction. Their evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 Shantappa who offered those golden eyes for being offered to Goddess Mahalaxmi and whose evidence shows that those golden eyes were given to the revision petitioner for being offered to Goddess Mahalaxmi while pooja was performed.
7. After appreciating the evidence the trial Court found that the revision petitioner did not return those golden eyes back to the office as per procedure. The trial Court also dismissed the contention of the revision petitioner that he was entitled to retain those golden eyes in view of the judgment which was passed in respect of the dispute between Priest and Devasthan because the said judgment never gave a right to the revision petitioner to retain those golden eyes.
8. The point of dishonest intention was raised but the Courts below dismissed the contention raised on that point by the revision petitioner by pointing out that the act of the revision petitioner is not returning those golden eyes was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he retained those golden eyes with dishonest intention.
9. The two Courts below have appreciated the evidence properly and the conclusions recorded by them are born out by the evidence on record. The point of dominion over the property after entrustment has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Its misappropriation also has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and dishonest intention has been also proved by which the present revision petitioner retained them with him.
10. Thus, this Court does not find that the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below which are being assailed by this revision petition are improper, incorrect or illegal. They are perfectly correct, proper and legal.
11. Thus, the revision application stands dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur is hereby approved and confirmed.
12. Parties to act on ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.