Judgment B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This is an appeal by a private complainant under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant had undertaken a private prosecution which resulted in the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 to 7, now, respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Being aggrieved she has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that one Sangabai Shivram is a resident of village Gaglegaon in Biloli Taluka of District Nanded. Her father belongs to village Kurala in Madnoor Taluka of Nizamabad (A.P.) District. Her husband Shivram was the owner of 82 acres of land at Gaglegaon. He was murdered about 26 years before and one Amruta was charged with the murder of Shivram. Accused No. 1 Madhavrao is the natural born son of Amruta and had been given in adoption to one Kondaji. There is some faint reference to the fact that after the murder of Shivram, there was some Civil litigation about the property. 3. The case of the complainant is that as a widow of Shivram she has been in cultivation, possession and enjoyment of all the agricultural lands measuring 82 acres at Gaglegaon. She stays at Gaglegaon for a few months from the time of sowing operations till harvesting season and then goes to her fathers place at Kurala in Andhra Pradesh. It may be noted that these two villages are from the adjoining Talukas of the bordering districts between Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, the distance between the two villages is hardly 24 miles. 4. While she was enjoying the property in this manner through her servants, she came to know that on or about 22nd July, 1969 as many as 13 sale-deeds have been passed purporting to have been executed by her in favour of 13 different purchasers. These 13 sale-deeds between them exhausted her entire property. When she came to know of this thing she collected information regarding the persons connected with those transactions and filed 13 separate complaints in respect of the 13 sale-deeds in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli. This was done on 29th September, 1969. 5. In each of these cases she has joined the purchaser under the sale-deed as accused No. 1 and the vendor, a woman from Sultanpeth, as accused No. 6. This was done on 29th September, 1969. 5. In each of these cases she has joined the purchaser under the sale-deed as accused No. 1 and the vendor, a woman from Sultanpeth, as accused No. 6. In all these cases the scribe of the bond, who wrote the documents is joined as accused No. 7. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the attesting witnesses and accused Nos. 3 and 5 are the identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar. It may be noted that accused No. 3 is the Police Patil of the village Sultanpeth, of which accused No. 6, the personating vendor, is also a resident. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are both residents of village Dugon from Biloli Taluka, whereas accused No. 5 is a resident of Gaglegaon to which the complainant and the property belongs. 6. After receiving these private complaints the learned Magistrate referred all the complaints to the Police for investigation and report under section 202 Cr.P.C. The investigating agency took almost 4½ years to submit the report. On the basis of the report, the learned Magistrate felt that one of the offences under section 467 I.P.C. was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and therefore, all the cases should be committed to the Court of Sessions. This order was passed on April 24, 1974. 7. By the time the learned Magistrate committed the accused, the new Code of Criminal Procedure was in force and the learned Sessions Judge felt that in view of the provisions of the new Code all the offences could be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly under section 228 Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge transferred back the cases to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal according to law. Accordingly the newly received cases on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate were numbered as Criminal Case No. 1 to 13 of 1974. He heard them one after the other on the basis of the same evidence which was repeated in all the cases, he disposed of all the 13 matters by acquitting all the accused persons. 8. The broad reasoning of the learned Magistrate is that undoubtedly 13 false documents in the form of sale-deeds came into being and except accused No. 3 the rest of the accused persons have associated themselves in the preparation of these documents. 8. The broad reasoning of the learned Magistrate is that undoubtedly 13 false documents in the form of sale-deeds came into being and except accused No. 3 the rest of the accused persons have associated themselves in the preparation of these documents. However, the real offenders were different from these accused persons and they, according to his observations, were a group of intellectual lawyers from Degloor and Biloli. All the accused in all the cases were mere tools in the hands of these Advocates and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate felt that the requisite mens rea was absent. On this view of the matter, he acquitted all the accused persons and further added that, "they would leave the Court without any stain on their character". 9. Being aggrieved by such an order and judgment the complainant has filed these 13 appeals with the Special Leave of this Court under sub-section (4) of section 378 Cri.P.C. Since the offences alleged were similar or identical and the evidence led was the same and the points of law and facts were identical we have heard these appeals together and this common judgment will dispose of all the 13 appeals. We are conscious that these are appeals against acquittal. However, the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate, is so fanciful and perverse that it is impossible for us to agree with him. Our further discussions will show that there is clear and unambiguous evidence of the commission of crime. On a very imaginary and fanciful excuse put forward by the accused, the learned Magistrate has acquitted them by merely addressing sermon against others who could be said to be participants but who were not before the Court. He ignores the main weight of the evidence as also the statements of the accused persons, most of which are virtual admissions of guilt. 10. We have already pointed out that the main allegation against the accused persons in each of the cases is that Husseinbi who is accused No. 6 in all the cases presented herself as Sangabai wife of Shivram who was a resident of Gaglegaon in Biloli Taluka of Nanded District. In all these cases, accused No. 1 is the purchaser under the sale-deed executed by accused No. 6 Husseinbi as Sangabai. In all these cases, accused Nos. 2 and 4 are attesting witnesses and accused Nos. In all these cases, accused No. 1 is the purchaser under the sale-deed executed by accused No. 6 Husseinbi as Sangabai. In all these cases, accused Nos. 2 and 4 are attesting witnesses and accused Nos. 3 and 5 are the identifying witnesses on all the sale-deeds. This being so we will deal in details with the facts of Appeal No. 927/75 arising out of Criminal Case No. 1 to 1975. The evidence in all the cases being the same, this reasoning will govern the decision of the other appeals also. 11. At this stage we might give some details regarding the 13 transactions which are the subject-matter of 13 appeals. In appeal No. 927/75 the property involved is S. No. 36 and 14/1. Out of the 12-A. 31-G of S. No. 36, 6-A and 15½ G. on the southern side and out of 3-A. 36-G. of S. No. 14/1, 2-A. 19-G. on the eastern side are purported to have been sold for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-. Rs. 2500/- are shown to have been paid prior to the sale-deed and Rs. 2500/- paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The sale-deed Ex. 31 in this case. The name of purchaser in this case is one Madhavrao Kondaji, accused No. 1. 12. The next appeal is, Cr. Appeal No. 928/75, which covers property S. No. 41. All these lands are from Gaglegaon. Out of 12-A. 17G. only 2-A. 10-G. have been sold under the sale-deed, Ex. 26, in this case. The total consideration of the document is Rs. 2000/- and the recitals of the document show that all of this amount was paid earlier and nothing was paid before the Sub-Registrar. The purchaser under this sale-deed is Pundalik Laxman, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 13. The next transaction is covered by Criminal Appeal No. 929/75 and it relates to 1-A. 20-G. out of a total acreage of 13.3-A of S. No. 175. The total consideration is Rs. 1500/- and nothing is paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The entire consideration is shown as paid earlier at home. The said-deed in this case is Ex. 25 and it is in favour of one Sambhaji s/o Laxman, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 14. The total consideration is Rs. 1500/- and nothing is paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The entire consideration is shown as paid earlier at home. The said-deed in this case is Ex. 25 and it is in favour of one Sambhaji s/o Laxman, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 14. In the next Appeal 930/75 the property sold is 2-A. 2-G. on the western side from out of S. 291 measuring 25-A. 25-G. The exhibit of this document is Ex. 23. The total consideration is Rs. 1000/- and all of which is shown as paid earlier at home with no cash consideration before the Sub-Registrar. This sale-deed is in favour of one Satya s/o Pochya, who is accused No. 1 in this case. 15. The next transaction is covered by Appeal No. 931/75 which relates to 19-A. 19-G. on the eastern side from out of total acreage of 25-A. 25-G. of S. No. 291. The consideration of the document is Rs. 7000/- and the whole of it is shown to have been paid earlier at home with no cash consideration before the Sub-Registrar. It is Ex. 31 in the case and the purchaser is one Sayya s/o Nagya, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 16. In Appeal No. 932/75 the land involved is section 308 measuring 10A. 34G. out of which 5A. 17G. are shown to have been sold for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- which is wholly paid at home. The exhibit of the sale-deed is Ex. 26 and the purchaser is one Shankarrao s/o Ramrao, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 17. In the next Appeal No. 933/75 two S. Nos. 41 and 175 are involved. 5-A 3-G, out of a total acreage of 12-A. 17-G. from S. No. 41 and 4-A. 21-G. out of 13-A. 3-G of S. No. 175 have been sold for Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 2000/- are shown to have been paid at home earlier and Rs. 8000/- are paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The sale-deed bears Ex. 26 in the case and the purchaser is one Venkatesh Vishawnath, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 18. In the next Appeal No. 934/75, 3 pieces of land are involved. 6-A. 15½G. 10,000/- Rs. 2000/- are shown to have been paid at home earlier and Rs. 8000/- are paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The sale-deed bears Ex. 26 in the case and the purchaser is one Venkatesh Vishawnath, who is accused No. 1 in the case. 18. In the next Appeal No. 934/75, 3 pieces of land are involved. 6-A. 15½G. on the northern side out of 12-A. 31-G. of S. 36, 1-A, 17g, on the western side out of 14/1 measuring 3-A. 36-G. and 1A 2-G. of S. No. 14/2 which is the total area of that survey No. have been sold for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- .Rs. 2500/- are shown to have been paid earlier at home and Rs. 2500/- before the Sub-Registrar. The exhibit of this sale-deed is Ex. 24 in the case and the purchaser is Babarao Dharmaji, who is accused No. 1 in that case. 19. In the next Appeal No. 935/75, middle 4-A. out of total acreage of 25-A. 25-G from S. No. 291 are sold for a total consideration of Rs. 2000/- which is wholly paid at home and nothing before the Sub-Registrar. The document is at Ex. 24 in the case and the purchaser is one Laxuman Khandu, who is accused No. 1 in that case. 20. In the next Appeal No. 936/75 the entire 292 measuring 2-A. 8G. is sold for a total consideration of Rs. 1000/- which is wholly paid at home and nothing before the Sub-Registrar. The document is Ex. 26 in the case and the purchaser is one Chandya s/o Barmya. 21. In the next Appeal No. 937/75, 2-A. 20-G out of 13. 3-G of 175 are sold for Rs. 2500/- which are wholly paid at home with no consideration before the Sub-Registrar. The sale-deed is Ex. 23 in that case and the purchaser is one Mariba s/o Bhawanji, who is accused No. 1 in that case. 22. In Appeal No. 938/75, two lands are involved. Out of No. 41 middle 5-A. 4-G. and out of No. 175 northern 4-A. 22-G. are involved. They are sold for a consideration of Rs. 9000/- , Rs. 4000/- are shown to have been paid earlier at home and Rs. 5000/- are paid before the Sub-Registrar. The exhibit of the document is Ex. 25 and the purchaser is one Rajeshwar Kisan Mahajan, who is accused No. 1 in this case. 23. They are sold for a consideration of Rs. 9000/- , Rs. 4000/- are shown to have been paid earlier at home and Rs. 5000/- are paid before the Sub-Registrar. The exhibit of the document is Ex. 25 and the purchaser is one Rajeshwar Kisan Mahajan, who is accused No. 1 in this case. 23. In the last Appeal No. 939/75, the northern 5A. 17G. from 10A. 34G. of No. 308 are sold for Rs. 2000/- which are wholly paid in cash at home with no consideration before the Sub-Registrar. The sale-deed is Ex. 25 in the case and the purchaser is one Sambhhaji s/o Ananda Khairgave, who is accused No. 1 in that case. 24. According to the prosecution this was an organised crime. Accused No. 3 along with accused Nos. 4 and 6 with one Advocate Govindrao Madnoorkar travelled from Degloor to Biloli in the car which was driven by (P.W. 7), Mohomed Sharif. They reached the house of one Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar, (P.W. 1), for accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, by about 9 a.m. The services of Sudhakarrao Padalkar were engaged on behalf of the purchasers. Stamp papers for 13 document were purchased and on one such stamp paper the present sale-deed Ex. 31 was written. It was scribed by accused No. 7 Gopaldas s/o Ganpatdas, the clerk of Advocate Bapurao Bilolikar. Out of the 13 sale-deeds this Gopaldas has written as many as 7 sale-deeds. one Madhukar Govindrao Bhosikar, a clerk of Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar has written as many as 4 documents and one Gangadhar Dattaram, Stamp Vendor, scribed two documents. 25. After the stamp papers were purchased and the documents were written out, it appears out, it appears that they were presented before the Sub-Registrar, who is (P.W. 5), Mirza Mahaboob Baig. There is conflicting evidence as to whether these documents were registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar or in the office of witness Sudhakarrao Padalkar on payment of special permissible fees on the pretext that accused No. 6 was a Pardanasin Lady. However, there is no dispute that on all the documents, accused No. 2, 3 and 4 were the attesting witnesses and accused Nos. 3 and 5 were the identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar performed the usual formalities of checking up the completed documents as also asking the executant whether she received the consideration mentioned in the document. However, there is no dispute that on all the documents, accused No. 2, 3 and 4 were the attesting witnesses and accused Nos. 3 and 5 were the identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar performed the usual formalities of checking up the completed documents as also asking the executant whether she received the consideration mentioned in the document. He accepted the identification by the identifying witnesses, as one of them was a village Police Patil viz., accused No. 3. Not only this but all the documents themselves came to be registered in due course. In all the documents it has been recited that possession was already delivered to the purchaser. 26. After completing the days work in this manner and after registering 13 sale-deeds purporting to be executed by Sangabai, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 along with Advocate Govindrao Madnoorkar returned in the same car of (P.W. 7), Mohomed Sharif to Degloor. Prosecution, therefore, alleges that the accused persons hatched a plot with or without the help of some more persons for the purpose of depriving the complainant of her property or to create a cloud on her property and raise disputes. It is a veiled suggestion of Sangabai that because the genitive father of accused No. 1 in the present appeal, viz., Madhavrao, was charged with the murder of her husband Shivram, these crimes have been committed by accused No. 1 with the help of others for the purpose of bringing the complainant into trouble. 27. The prosecution has to establish in the first instance in this case that the complainant Sangabai did not execute the document but it was accused No. 6 who did it. This is a peculiar case where very scancy evidence has been led by the prosecution. The statement of Sangabai can be safely accepted that she did not execute any of the sale-deeds. Since Sangabai was not a literate person and since accused No. 6 also does not appear to be a literate person, thumb marks appears on all the sale-deeds as that of executant Husseinbi. Specimen thumb marks of complainant Sangabai were taken during investigation as also those of accused No. 6 were obtained for comparison. The thumb mark on the sale-deeds were also made available tot he finger print expert. Specimen thumb marks of complainant Sangabai were taken during investigation as also those of accused No. 6 were obtained for comparison. The thumb mark on the sale-deeds were also made available tot he finger print expert. As a result of his examination, (P.W. 11), Narayan Dhondiram Bhoi came to the conclusion in each of the cases that the thumb mark on the 13 documents are not that of complainant Sangabai. He has also come to a positive conclusion that in all the cases the thumb marks appear to be that of accused No. 6. This evidence of (P.W. 11), Bhoi is a positive piece of evidence led by the prosecution against all the accused persons. In addition there is the admission of accused No. 6 that she did make the thumb mark on all the 13 sale-deeds purporting to be those of Sangabai wife of Shivram. 28. Impersonation as well as forgery of thumb marks by accused No. 6 is admitted by her. However, besides her admission there is positive evidence in the form of negative statement of the complainant and the expert evidence of Narayan Bhoi. As a result of this evidence, prosecution has undoubtedly established that in none of those 13 sale-deeds the complainant is the executant. Accused No. 6 is a Muslim woman who is the resident of village Sultanpeth. She has nothing to do with Sangabai or with her property at Gaglegaon. The only explanation of accused No. 6 for doing this is that she was asked by accused No. 3 to got with him to a sugarcane farm. Accused No. 3 promised her that she would get labour charges of 13 labourers from the sugar farm. Instead she was taken in a car of (P.W. 7) Mohomed Sharif to Biloli where she was made to give thumb marks on several documents in some house. We will consider in due course this explanation by accused No. 6, which is a common explanation in all the cases, and see if it is borne out by circumstances or not and whether it should be accepted or not. However, this evidence satisfactorily proves that the thumb mark of the executant on all the evidence satisfactorily proves that the thumb mark of the executant on all the 13 documents, which purport to be that of Sangabai are not hers and they are forged. However, this evidence satisfactorily proves that the thumb mark of the executant on all the evidence satisfactorily proves that the thumb mark of the executant on all the 13 documents, which purport to be that of Sangabai are not hers and they are forged. They are the thumb marks of accused No. 6 in all the cases. 29. The next point is the role played by the purchasers as also the atteting and identifying witnesses on the documents. So far as purchaser Madhavrao in Appeal No. 927/75 is concerned he admits his presence at the time of the transaction and also admits his signature at the time of the presentation of the document. In the same way all the purchasers, who are accused No. 1 in the 13 appeals, admit having obtained the sale-deed and having presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar. Only six of the purchasers are able to read and write and have made their signatures and others have made their thumb marks while presenting the document for registration. So far as accused No. 6 is concerned, viz. the vendor, she has made a clean breast of everything. According to her, while she was on her way from Sultanpeth of Degloor, accused No. 3 induced her to go with him. He promised to pay her labour charges of 13 labourers from a sugar farm. On that understanding she travelled with him from Degloor to Biloli in a car driver by ( P.W. 7), Mohomed Sharif. She also claims the presence of accused No. 4. Having made this statement she adds that she has made all the 13 thumb impression on the sale-deeds. 30. So far as the consideration is concerned, though Rs. 18000/- are shown to have been paid in cash against the various sale-deeds, she states that she was not paid anything at all. However, she admits that she was introduced by accused No. 3 and 5 to the Sub-Registrar as Sangabai wife of Shivram, There is therefore, no doubt that accused No. 6 admits not only her presence at Biloli, but the role played by her as a vendor in the name of Sangabai wife of Shivram. Admittedly she has no landed properly at all at Gaglegaon nor has she any title to any of the lands which purported to have been transferred under the 13 sale-deeds. 31. Out of the remaining accused Nos. Admittedly she has no landed properly at all at Gaglegaon nor has she any title to any of the lands which purported to have been transferred under the 13 sale-deeds. 31. Out of the remaining accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the attesting witneses and accused No. 5 is the identifying witness, and accused No. 3 both as the attesting as well as identifying witness. We will consider the case of accused No. 3 separately as his defence is of total denial. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 admit their signatures as attesting witnesses on all the documents. However, their case is that they made their signatures at a time when there was no thumb mark of the so called executant on the document. Accused No. 2 says that he made that signature in the Bar room at Biloli Civil Court. Accused No. 4 does not refer to any particular place. So far as their own admission is concerned, each can be read against himself. They admit their presence in Biloli and also admit their signatures as attesting witnesses on the document. The prosecution case is that sale-deed is a forged document and these accused have contributed to the making of the false documents. The role of putting a signature as an attestor is admitted, but they want to suggest that this was at the instance of some one and at a time when the executant had not put her thumb mark on the document. So far as accused No. 5 is concerned, he admits his presence and the making of the signature, but he denies that he did so as an identifying witness. Normally the identifying in all such Taluka places is by the Police Patil of the village to which the parties belong. Accused No. 3 who is a Police Patil was not Police Patil of Gaglegaon, but was a Police Patil of Sultanpeth in Andhra Pradesh. It appears to us therefore, that in order to identify the executant as Sangabai, accused No. 5 who is a resident of Gaglegaon, was chosen and on his identification of Sangabai, the Police Patil joined in identifying accused No. 6 Husseinbi as Sangabai. Hence we find that in these cases, there are two persons acting as identifying witnesses, viz., Police Patil accused No. 3 and accused No. 5 a resident of Gaglegaon. 32. Hence we find that in these cases, there are two persons acting as identifying witnesses, viz., Police Patil accused No. 3 and accused No. 5 a resident of Gaglegaon. 32. The claim of accused No. 5 is that he did put his signature but at the instance of accused No. 3 and Govindrao, Advocate of Degloor. The explanation which each one of the accused persons gave will be considered in due course. At the moment we are deciding as to who were the persons physically present and what is the role played by them in relation to the 13 sale-deeds purported to have been executed by Sangabai. On his own admission not only he is present in Biloli, but has also made the signatures on all the 13 documents. His plea that he executed the document at the instance of accused No. 3 will be considered after we refer to the case of accused No. 3. 33. Accused No. 3 is the main identifying witness. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Sub-Registrar would not know every executant of a document before him. So far as the attesting witnesses are concerned, he is not required to know them, if there is a signature of the executant accompanied by two attestations which appear to be in order on the face of it he would admit that document for registration. At that stage he would require the identification of the executant as being the same person who purports to execute the document. This is required to be done by some one who is known to the Sub Registrar. A Government Officer like a Police Patil of the village to which the executant belongs normally serves as the identifying witness. In this case on all the 13 documents the name of accused No. 3 appears as the identifying witness who has been described as the Police Patil of Sultanpeth. However, accused No. 3 denies his presence as well as his signature on all the documents. It would be necessary to find out whether from the evidence led by the prosecution, the presence of accused No. 3 at the time of the execution of the documents as also his signatures can be held proved. 34. However, accused No. 3 denies his presence as well as his signature on all the documents. It would be necessary to find out whether from the evidence led by the prosecution, the presence of accused No. 3 at the time of the execution of the documents as also his signatures can be held proved. 34. For proving the signatures in this case, the prosecution took signatures and thumb marks of the persons concerned and referred them to the Hand-writing Expert and the Finger Print Expert. So far as the opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert is concerned, he has only proved the identify of hand-writing of accused Nos. 1 and 4. According to his opinion, the specimen signatures of accused Nos. 2,3 and 5 given to him do not tally with the disputed writings of these three persons on the sale-deeds. He is therefore of the view that the handwriting referred to him is not made by those persons who wrote the attestation and the two identifying signatures on the disputed 13 sale-deeds. In one sense therefore the opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert supports the plea of accused No. 3 that the signature on the document is not made by him. We may at once point out that though the Hand-Writing Expert does not prove the signatures of accused Nos. 2 and 5 on the 13 sale-deeds, both these accused admit their signatures as attesting and identifying witnesses made on all the 13 sale-deeds. It is, therefore, possible to observe that the Hand-Writing Expert may be committing a mistake and, though his opinion is relevant under the Evidence Act and must be given due weight, it cannot serve as a conclusive piece of evidence. He is liable to err as he is obviously shown in the case of accused Nos. 2 and 5. It may also be that a person may be capable of writing his own signatures in different manner and if he gives a specimen signature in a certain manner, a Hand-Writing Expert may be misled and may not be able to express with confidence that the disputed signature is also made by the person who supplied a specimen signature to him. 35. However, this does not help the prosecution in proving that the signatures on the documents are those of accused No. 3. 35. However, this does not help the prosecution in proving that the signatures on the documents are those of accused No. 3. When we look to the other evidence we find that the presence of accused No. 3 in Biloli is primarily proved by ( P.W. 7), Mohomed Sharif. He is the driver of car No. ADX. 7323 owned by Gopalrao, Advocate from Badikodapgal in A.P. He has been often plying that car between Degloor and Biloli and other places. He claims to know accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6. He points out all these three accused persons in the dock and says that at about 5 years before he gave evidence, one evening at about 8 p.m. accused No. 3 came to him at his house at Degloor and requested him to offer the car on hire for going to Biloli, which he agreed to do on payment of Rs. 60/- for return trip. Accordingly he next day morning he carried accused Nos. 3 and 4 with him to Biloli and reached them at about 9 a.m. to the house of Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar. Thereafter he parked his car near Hanuman temple upto 7 p.m. On the return journey he carried with him accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to Degloor. The cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 is confined in pointing out that along with these accused even Govindrao Madnoorkar, Advocate, of Degloor also went to Biloli in the same car. Accused No. 3 made an attempt to challenge his own presence and hiring of the car but all those suggestions were refuted by the witness. It is possible that accused No. 3 being the village Police Patil had occasion to go to the Taluka town of Degloor and was known to the witness. There is no reason why this witness should give false evidence or made up evidence only to assist the prosecution case. Undoubtedly accused No. 4 was present in Biloli and admits having made the various signatures on the sale-deeds. 36. Besides the evidence of Mohomed Sharif, there are two other witnesses, who speak about the presence of accused No. 3 in Biloli. The first one of them is ( P.W. 5), Mirza Mahboob Baig, the Sub-Registrar. Undoubtedly accused No. 4 was present in Biloli and admits having made the various signatures on the sale-deeds. 36. Besides the evidence of Mohomed Sharif, there are two other witnesses, who speak about the presence of accused No. 3 in Biloli. The first one of them is ( P.W. 5), Mirza Mahboob Baig, the Sub-Registrar. It is true that the Sub-Registrar has not specifically identified any of the accused persons as being present before him at the time of the Registration. However, he speaks of having discharged his official duty in examining and registering the 13 sale-deeds in due course of duty. It may be worth while to remember as can be seen from the evidence of the Court witness Advocate Gopalrao Madnoorkar that Mirza Baig had formerly served at Degloor and was known to Advocate Madnoorkar. With this background if we look at the evidence of Mirza Baig, he claims that the executant and the persons identifying have put their signatures in his presence. It is, therefore, obvious that accused No. 6 as well as accused Nos. 5 and 3 have put their signatures before the Sub-Registrar and in his presence. He also enquired of the executant about the receipt of the consideration which she admitted. Thereafter he registered the documents and made his official endorsement. From this testimony of Mirza Baig, which is not at all challenged by any cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 3, we find it sufficient to hold that not only accused No. 3 travelled from Degloor to Biloli in the car of witness Mohomed Sharif but was also present at the time of the registration of the several sale-deeds before the Sub-Registrar Mirza Baig. In his presence and in his capacity as a Police Patil of a village to which accused No. 6 belonged he made the signatures as an identifying witness. 37. There is a third piece of evidence and that is supplied by the defence evidence led by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Their witness No. 1 is Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar of Biloli. This Advocate claims to have been engaged by the purchasers to advise them for obtaining proper documents of title. He says that accused No. 3 was one of the persons present and he is able to identify him as the same person. He was one of those who came in the car of witness Mohomed Sharif. This Advocate claims to have been engaged by the purchasers to advise them for obtaining proper documents of title. He says that accused No. 3 was one of the persons present and he is able to identify him as the same person. He was one of those who came in the car of witness Mohomed Sharif. Advocate Sudhakarrao adds that not only all these persons were participants in the preparation of sale-deeds but Advocate Madnoorkar also accompanied them and was the person taking leading part in bringing about the sale-deeds. When the witness suggested that the documents should be registered in the Sub-Registrars office, Advocate Madnoorker turned down that suggestion on the ground that accused No. 6 was a Pardanashin lady. It was there decided to solicit the services of Sub-Registrar at the residence and office of witness Sudhakarrao on payment of the usual fees. He further says that accused No. 6 stayed in his house throughout the day. Stamp papers of the appropriate value were purchased and the documents were written. The writing of the document does not seem to have taken place in his presence but all the attestation, execution and identification took place in his presence. That is his positive evidence. He is a lawyer who has been doing this conveyancing work on an extensive scale. He claims to have advised at least in 500 cases of transfer-deeds. When he therefore says that the attestation as well as the identification took place in his presence we must hold that accused Nos. 2 and 4 as attesting witnesses and accused Nos. 3 and 5 as identifying witnesses were present and put their signatures at the respective places on 13 sale-deeds in the presence and within the sight of witness Sudhakarrao Padalkar. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 undoubtedly admit their signatures but do not admit having put their signatures as attestors after the thumb mark made by accused No. 6. However, the defence witness Sudhakarrao Padalkar is a witness led by them and he proves that the attestation was done according to law. On the evidence led by the accused themselves we hold that accused Nos. 2 and 4 made their signatures as attestors only after the thumb mark of the accused No. 6 was placed upon the 13 sale-deeds. 38. On the evidence led by the accused themselves we hold that accused Nos. 2 and 4 made their signatures as attestors only after the thumb mark of the accused No. 6 was placed upon the 13 sale-deeds. 38. From this evidence of Sudhakarrao Padalkar, Advocate, we also hold that accused No. 5 made his signature as an identifying witness only after accused No. 6 made her thumb mark. Accused No. 5 has not stated specifically whether he gave his attestation before or after the thumb mark; but it could not be before because the identification is to be done before the Sub-Registrar who would accept the identification only of the executant who has put her thumb mark or signature as the case may be. From the evidence of Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar we are satisfied that accused No. 5 made his signature as attesting witness only after accused No. 6 made her thumb mark and after the attesting witnesses made their attestation. 39. At this stage it may be important to remember that accused No. 3 who has been described as one of the accused having taken a leading part, though that allegation is not admissible as evidence because a co-accused has played a role of attesting witness as well as identifying witness. Below the two signatures of attesting witnesses, viz. accused Nos. 2 and 4, in each of the 13 sale-deeds there is a third signature, which is of accused No. 3. In addition he has also identified the executant. Since his presence is proved by Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar and since in addition the Sub-Registrar says in his testimony that the executant and the persons identifying her have put their signatures in his presence, we must hold that accused No. 3 was present and also made his signatures. It is entirely different that he denies his presence as also denies the signatures. We are aware that the Handwriting Experts evidence favours accused No. 3 and the prosecution is not able to prove through the Hand-Writing Expert that the signatures purporting to be of accused No. 3 on the sale-deeds are in fact similar to his own specimen signature. It is entirely different that he denies his presence as also denies the signatures. We are aware that the Handwriting Experts evidence favours accused No. 3 and the prosecution is not able to prove through the Hand-Writing Expert that the signatures purporting to be of accused No. 3 on the sale-deeds are in fact similar to his own specimen signature. However, on the evidence of Mohomed Sharif, Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar and Sub-Registrar Mirza Baig we have no hesitation in holding that accused No. 3 acted as the identifying witness being the Police Patil of a village and in that capacity he made his signatures at 2 places on all the thirteen sale-deeds. 40. Even though we were so satisfied about the presence and the role of accused No. 3 as an attestor, we had a look at the various signatures of accused No. 3 on the sale-deeds and compared them with the specimen signature given by him to the expert as also his other signatures appearing on the record, viz., the vakalatnama in the trial Court. It is true that our observation is merely on the basis of visual inspection without the aid of magnifying glass or other relevant material. However, in view of the fact that section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to compare Handwriting we examined the disputed signatures . We found that there are several important characteristics of Devnagari in the writing found in the admitted writing which was also traceable in the disputed writing. The 26 signatures on 13 sale-deeds do seem to form 3 or 4 different scripts. In each script there are some significant features though the script slightly differs from each other. We get the impression that accused No. 3 has deliberately changed the mode of his writing from time to time so as to disguise the writing. In couple of places he has signed in modi in spite of the signature in Devnagari script. In spite of that, we are satisfied from the physical presence and the performance of his duty as a Police Patil for the purpose of identification, which is spoken to be the Defence witness Sudhakarrao Padalkar and Prosecution witness Mirza Baig and Mohomed Sharif that he is the maker of the signatures appearing on the 13 sale-deeds at two different places. 41. 41. Having thus held the presence and role of the various accused persons proved, the next question is whether they have committed any offence and if so, what is that offence. We will separately deal with each of these appeals from that point of view. So far as Appeal No. 927/75 is concerned accused No. 1 admits that he has taken a sale-deed purporting to be one from Sangabai of his village, though Sangabai was not present in the Sub-Registrar's office. He knows her. He is aware that she has property and cultivates the agricultural lands personally through servants. It is different that he denies that she stays at Gaglegaon but alleges that she stays at Kurala. In his main defence he has stated that it was Madnoorkar Advocate from Degloor who has brought all of them into a trap and managed to present a woman as Sangabai. It is therefore clear that accused No. 1 in this appeal knew that Sangabai, and also knew that the present executant the sale-deed in his favour as Sangabai was not that woman but was an utter stranger. Even assuming that Advocate Mandnoorkar had something to do with the transaction we fail to understand how this accused can persuade himself to believe that he could take a document from an utter stranger knowing that she was neither that woman nor a woman owning that property. This defence has got to be rejected, and it must be half that he undertook the transaction with the full knowledge that the document was not being executed by the person by whom it purports to be executed. He was undoubtedly taking a title-deed and show of payment was made before the Sub-Registrar. There is a recital of earlier payment of the amount. If the woman who styled herself as Sangabai was seen by him for the first time in the Sub-Registrar's Office or in the house of Advocate Sudhakarrao Padalkar at Biloli, to whom did he make the payment of earnest money as recited in the document of sale-deed. There is therefore no doubt that the whole document is a forged document and with that knowledge he has participated in the presentation of the said document before the Sub-Registrar for being registered. We may briefly state that accused No. 6 has admitted her role and it is obvious that she knew that she was not Sangabai. There is therefore no doubt that the whole document is a forged document and with that knowledge he has participated in the presentation of the said document before the Sub-Registrar for being registered. We may briefly state that accused No. 6 has admitted her role and it is obvious that she knew that she was not Sangabai. Though she claims to have been promised by accused No. 3 to pay charges of 13 labourers from the owner of a sugar cane farm, she could find out that the house of Sudhakarrao Padalkar or the Sub-Registrar's Office was not the sugarcane farm, where she was being led. When she was introduced to Sub-Registrar as Sangabi of Gaglegaon, she knew that she was not that woman and was purporting to execute the sale-deeds. She has also therefore acted with full knowledge of the fact that she was not Sangabai but was making her thumb marks wholly as Sangabai and was therefore making a false document which was a valuable security being a title to immovable property. 42. It obviously follows that in the office of the lawyer and in the office of the Sub-Registrar, accused Nos. 2 to 5 played the role of attesting and identifying witnesses. Accused No. 5 was a resident of Gaglegaon and he knew that the woman executing the document was a Muslim woman from Sultanpeth and not Sangabai of Gaglegaon. Sangabai was the owner of a large property of 82 acres. It was therefore impossible that the villagers would not know her. With the full knowledge that Sangabai was not executing the document accused No. 5 who is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 made the Sub-Registrar believe by putting his identifying signature that accused No. 6 was in fact Sangabai, thereby he assisted the preparation of a false document, which was a valuable security. 43. Since we have held the role of accused No. 3 as an identifying witness proved, it is obvious that he knew accused No. 6 who was a resident of his own village. In fact he brought her to Biloli in a car. The sale-deeds purported to be executed by Sangabai of Gaglegaon and when accused No. 3 identified accused No. 6 as Sangabai he was deliberately misleading the Sub-Registrar in making him believe accused No. 6 to be Sangabai. In fact he brought her to Biloli in a car. The sale-deeds purported to be executed by Sangabai of Gaglegaon and when accused No. 3 identified accused No. 6 as Sangabai he was deliberately misleading the Sub-Registrar in making him believe accused No. 6 to be Sangabai. Undoubtedly he has played a conscious role and perhaps a leading role in bringing about forged documents. 44. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are residents of Dugao in Biloli Taluka. It is important to note that accused No. 4 first goes to Degloor and accompanies accused No. 3 in the hired car. There is no evidence to show how accused No. 2 reached Biloli. However, though there is no direct evidence to show that accused Nos. 2 and 4 knew Sangabai, prosecution led evidence of (P.W. 4), Vithalrao Shivram who is Police Patil of Gaglegaon. This Vithalrao says that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are related to each other by marriage and accused No. 5 is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 which consists of asking one question only, what is suggested is that Sangabai never stayed or visited Gaglegaon after the death of her husband. No other question has been asked. It is therefore clear that accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were close relations and they all acted in a consert in procuring the services of accused No. 6 through accused No. 3 by sending accused No. 4 to Delgoor to accompany accused No. 3. In this manner accused Nos. 1 to 5 represented a team as if, who took accused No. 6 a labourer woman on the pretext of giving her charges of 13 laboureres, with them to Advocate at Biloli and carried their sinister design of creating false title-deeds. For that purpose they obviously deceived the Sub-Registrar into believing that the woman before him was Sangabai and she was executing the said documents in due course. Criminal participation of all these accused is thus apparent on the face of the record. 45. The above discussion will show that the document Ex. 31 in this appeal purports to be the sale-deed executed by Sangabai, which in fact she has not done. Accused No. 6 posed herself as Sangabai and impresented her. Criminal participation of all these accused is thus apparent on the face of the record. 45. The above discussion will show that the document Ex. 31 in this appeal purports to be the sale-deed executed by Sangabai, which in fact she has not done. Accused No. 6 posed herself as Sangabai and impresented her. She puts the thumb mark which amounts to forgery as the document purports to be executed by Sangabai by whom it is not in fact executed. In this process she is associated by purchaser, the attesting witness and the identifying witnesses, who had also contributed their might in the preparation of false documents by playing various roles. There is therefore no doubt that all the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 46. The learned trial Magistrate framed an independent charge under section 465 I.P.C. besides the charge under section 467. Since the offence under section 467 I.P.C. already covers the offence described in section 465, neither it is necessary to frame a separate charge nor it is necessary to convict the accused persons independently under that charge. There is a charge under section 419 I.P.C. against accused No. 6 and a charge against all other persons in the matter of assisting her in committing this crime. We are afraid even after accepting the prosecution evidence as a whole, this charge does not seem to be borne out as all the ingredients of that offence are not present in the case. 47. The fourth head of charge merely says that accused No. 6 pretending to be Sangabai wife of Shivram executed a sale-deed in favour of Madhavrao and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 419 I.P.C. It is not indicated who is cheated. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Sangabai does not seem to have been actually cheated in this case at all but the Sub-Registrar has been cheated into registering the documents. We wonder whether that could be the correct approach. What is cheating has been defined in section 415 I.P.C. For committing this offence, the accused has first to deceived some person fraudulently or dishonestly and induce that person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. This is the first manner in which cheating can be practised. We wonder whether that could be the correct approach. What is cheating has been defined in section 415 I.P.C. For committing this offence, the accused has first to deceived some person fraudulently or dishonestly and induce that person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. This is the first manner in which cheating can be practised. In this case even if we assume that the Sub-Registrar is deceived into believing that accused No. 6 was Sangabai, he is not induced by such deceit to deliver any property to any person. The second manner in which cheating can be achieved is to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induce that person so deceived to do to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived. Taking this much part of the definition of cheating into consideration, it does appear that the Sub-Registrar has been induced to register the documents which he would not have otherwise done, if he knew that accused No. 6 was not Sangabai. However, the definition requires that in addition to this act or omission, it must cause or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property and when this happens or is likely to happen the offence of cheating comes into existence. 48. In the case of Government servants like the Sub-Registrar, who is deceived into registering a document by an executant who is a fake executant, deception in the common parlance may be there; but this is not a deception which can in a manner cause any damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. When such offence was alleged to have been committed, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has taken a view in he case of (Muhammad Bakhasha v. The Crown)1, 1941(22) Lah. 718 that unless the person deceived suffers of is likely to suffer any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property, the offence of cheating cannot be said to have been committed. We are thus satisfied that the charge under section 419 I.P.C. against the accused persons cannot be held proved. 49. The learned trial Magistrate framed a charge under section 143 I.P.C. against all the accused and against accused Nos. We are thus satisfied that the charge under section 419 I.P.C. against the accused persons cannot be held proved. 49. The learned trial Magistrate framed a charge under section 143 I.P.C. against all the accused and against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 under section 465, 467, 419 read with section 149 I.P.C. We do not think that what the accused persons did could be described as a common object of the assembly. It was in fact a common intention of all these persons to forge the document with a view to create cloud on the title of Sangabai and to benefit either themselves or some other. We are not therefore of the view that the accused should be convicted under section 143 I.P.C. or accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 should be convicted of other substantive offences read with section 149 of the I.P.C. 50 This brings us to the consideration of the case of accused No. 7 in all these appeals. There are three different bond writers who have lend services to the writing of 13 sale-deed in question. The only role assigned to them is to purchase stamp papers of the adequate value and to scribe the sale deeds. It is not alleged that they knew any one of the parties nor it is alleged that any one of them identified any one as such. If a regular scriber or a Pleader's Clerk is asked to perform this role, we think it is legitimate that he would accept that part and against payment of normal fees or charges he would lend his service for scribing a document. Since the evidence does not take them beyond playing that limited role, we think that no offence seems to have been proved against them and accused No. 7 in all these cases are entitled to be acquitted. 51. At this stage a brief resume of the slightly different stand that each of the purchasers has taken may now be mentioned. We have already referred to the appeal No. 927/75 earlier. Going to Appeal No. 928/75 we find that purchaser Pundalik Laxman, accused No. 1 in that case, is also a resident of Gaglegaon and knows that Sangabai owns lands at Gaglegaon which she cultivates personally in every year. He then admits that the woman who gave the thumb mark was not Sangabai. Going to Appeal No. 928/75 we find that purchaser Pundalik Laxman, accused No. 1 in that case, is also a resident of Gaglegaon and knows that Sangabai owns lands at Gaglegaon which she cultivates personally in every year. He then admits that the woman who gave the thumb mark was not Sangabai. So far as this sale deed, Ex. 26 in that case, is concerned there is not the usual consideration before the Sub-Registrar, but the entire amount of Rs. 2000/- is alleged to have been paid at home, but he made the payment to accused No. 3. In reply to the last general question in which he takes up the position that accused No. 3 and Advocate Govindrao Madnoorkar undertook the responsibility to secure the presence of Sangabai wife of Shivram for executing the sale-deed. He did not inquire whether the woman who put the thumb mark was real Sangabai. Reading the replies given by him and the defence taken up by him shows that there is no substance in it. He was a resident of Gaglegaon, who knew the lady and the property and had still obtained a sale-deed from a woman whom he knew was not Sangabai. There is therefore no doubt that not only this accused but all others have committed the offence as indicated in Appeal No. 927/75. In this appeal also we hold accused No. 6 guilty under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 guilty under section 467 read with 34 I.P.C. 52. In Appeal No. 929/75 the purchaser is one Sambhaji Laxman, accused No. 1 in that case. He is a resident of Koleborgaon from Biloli Taluka. He disowns his acquaintance with Sangabai but when questioned about the consideration, which is wholly shown to be paid at home, his reply is that he paid Rs. 1500/- to accused No. 3 and Govindrao Advocate. He was then specifically asked as to how he could obtain a sale-deed from accused No. 6. His only reply is that he did all this at the instance of accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate. After taking into consideration his defence, we are satisfied that this accused was fully aware that he was obtaining sale-deed from some one who was not Sangabai and was thus committing a crime. His only reply is that he did all this at the instance of accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate. After taking into consideration his defence, we are satisfied that this accused was fully aware that he was obtaining sale-deed from some one who was not Sangabai and was thus committing a crime. It is entirely different that he was induced to do so or was asked to do so by accused No. 3 or an Advocate from Degloor, but that cannot help him. It must be said that he was active participant and with full knowledge that the executant was not Sangabai obtained a sale-deed from her. As in the earlier appeals, accused No. 6 in this appeal must be convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 53. In Appeal No. 930/75, the purchaser Satwya s/o Pochya is a resident of Khandgaon, Taluka Biloli. His sale-deed, Ex. 23, shows that Rs. 1000/- were paid at home and nothing before the Sub-Registrar. When he was asked about the payment of the consideration of Rs. 1000/- to the executant Sangabai, his reply was that he paid the consideration to Govindrao Advocate and not to any woman. When he was asked about the taking of a sale-deed from Husseinbi in the name of Sangabai, his only reply was that he made no inquiries whatsoever about the identity of the woman, but merely believed the words of Govindrao, Sudhakarrao and Bapurao, Advocate from Biloli and accused No. 3 also persuaded him into the belief that the woman was Sangabai. From the manner in which all the documents were executed at Biloli and the general circumstances present in the case, we are satisfied that all the purchasers, the attesting witnesses and the identifying witnesses and some others, whoever they may be, formed into a group for the purpose of executing several documents to cover the entire property of a widow named Sangabai from Gaglegaon. The fact that no inquiry is at all made cannot be accepted when a person intends to purchase real property on payment of cash consideration. We are therefore satisfied from the inherent circumstances that accused No. 1 in this appeal was fully conscious that he was taking a sale-deed from a person who was not Sangabai and was thereby making his own contribution to the creation of a false document. We are therefore satisfied from the inherent circumstances that accused No. 1 in this appeal was fully conscious that he was taking a sale-deed from a person who was not Sangabai and was thereby making his own contribution to the creation of a false document. In this case, accused No. 6 must be convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 54. In Appeal No. 931 of 1975 accused No. 1 purchaser Sayya s/o Nagya is a resident of Gaglegaon. He admits that the land which he purchased belonged to Sangabai and was in her possession. His sale-deed, which is Ex. 31 in that case, shows that Rs. 7000/- were paid earlier at home and nothing before Sub-Registrar. When asked about this consideration he says that he paid this amount to accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate and not to Sangabai at all. He also takes up a position that accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate laid a trap in which he was caught and they have cheated him to believe that accused No. 6 was Sangabai. It is impossible to accept such a defence for the simple reason that in a small village every one knows every one else and particularly a woman owning 82 acres of land was bound to be known by this accused, who is resident of Gaglegaon. In this appeal also accused No. 6 must be convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 55. In Appeal No. 932/75 accused No. 1 Shankarrao Ramrao the purchaser is a resident of Gaglegaon. He also seems to have property at Kumbhargaon in the same Taluka of Biloli. When questioned about the property purchased by him, he admits that the land was owned by Sangabai and was in her actual possession in 1969. His sale-deed is Ex. 26 in the case and is for Rs. 2000/-. Nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar but everything has been paid at home. According to him, the consideration of Rs. 2000/- was paid by him to accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate and his general defence is that he was deceived by Madnoorkar Advocate who led a trap for these persons. 26 in the case and is for Rs. 2000/-. Nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar but everything has been paid at home. According to him, the consideration of Rs. 2000/- was paid by him to accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar Advocate and his general defence is that he was deceived by Madnoorkar Advocate who led a trap for these persons. When this witness is a resident of Gagalegaon and chooses to make payment to some one else and obtains a sale-deed of a woman whom he knows that she was not Sagngabai, it is obvious that he has committed a crime as all the purchaser had committed till now. In this appeal also accused No. 6 is guilty of the offence under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 56. In Appeal No. 933 of 1975, purchaser accused No. 1 Venkatesh is a resident of Gaglegaon and admits that Sangabai was in possession of the land purchased by him and owned it. His sale-deed, which is Ex. 26 in that case, is for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 2000/- were paid at home and Rs. 8000/- before the Sub-Registrar. When asked about this consideration his reply is that he paid the amount of Rs. 8000/- to the Sub-Resitrar who handed it over to Govindrao Advocate. His general defence thereafter is that accused No. 3 and Govindrao laid him into belief that accused No. 6 was Sangabai and both of them have played a fraud on him. It is not possible to believe this explanation of accused No. 1. He is a resident of Galgegaon and ought to have known Sangabai, who is a owner of 82 Acres of land. His further explanation that he did not know Sangabai and could easily be persuaded by accused No. 3 and Govindrao to believe that accused No. 6 was Sangabai cannot be accepted. He is, therefore, guilty of participation in the preparation of a false document. In this appeal also accused No. 6 is convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 57. In appeal No. 934/75 purchaser accused No. 1 Babarao Dharmaji is a resident of Gaglegaon and admits that the land purchased by him under sale-deed, Ex. 24, in the case, belongs to Sangabai and was in her possession. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 57. In appeal No. 934/75 purchaser accused No. 1 Babarao Dharmaji is a resident of Gaglegaon and admits that the land purchased by him under sale-deed, Ex. 24, in the case, belongs to Sangabai and was in her possession. His sale-deed is for Rs. 5000/- out of which Rs. 2500/- are paid at home and Rs. 2500/- before the Sub-Registrar. His reply in relation to the consideration is that he paid Rs. 2500/- earlier to Govindrao Madnoorkar Advocate and he made similar payment to Govindrao Advocate in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. This accused gave a very interesting reply that there was a woman behind a curtain, how put her thumb mark on the document by stretching her hand from behind the curtain and he could not say whether she was Sangabai or some one else. The prosecution as well as the defence evidence is clear that accused No. 6 though a Muslim woman was a labourer and was not wearing a Parda at all. It is nobody's case nor is it suggested any where that there was a woman sitting behind the curtain who was extending her hand for the purpose of putting thumb marks on sale-deeds. Moreover this witness is from Gaglegaon and cannot pretend that he did not know Sangabai. There is no substance in this defence of this accused. In this appeal also accused No. 6 is convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 58. In Appeal No. 935 of 1975 purchaser accused No. 1 is one Laxman Khandu. He is a resident of village Bendri from the same Biloli Taluka. He is asked that Sangabai said, that the land which he purchased belongs to her and she was actually cultivating it. His answer is that her evidence is true. The sale-deed taken by him for Rs. 2000/- is Ex. 24 in that case. Nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar. He says that he paid Rs. 2000/- to accused No. 3 and Govindrao Advocate and not to any women either Sangabai or otherwise. He merely says thal Govidrao Advocate and accused No. 3 assured him that the woman present was competent to execute the sale-deed and, therefore, he accepted the document from her. Nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar. He says that he paid Rs. 2000/- to accused No. 3 and Govindrao Advocate and not to any women either Sangabai or otherwise. He merely says thal Govidrao Advocate and accused No. 3 assured him that the woman present was competent to execute the sale-deed and, therefore, he accepted the document from her. He admits that he never knew that women at all and could not say who put the thumb mark on the sale-deed. We have already pointed out that since all these documents were executed together after common consultation the execution of this sale-deed is also a part and parcel to the organised crime committed by all these persons-present at Biloli on 22nd July, 1969. In this appeal also accused No. 6 is convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 59. In Appeal No. 936/75 the purchaser is one Chandya s/o Barmya who owns agricultural land at Gaglegaon, he admits that the land purchased by him belongs to Sangabai of Galegaon and she was in actual physical cultivation thereof. He says that he paid Rs. 1000/- to accused No. 3 and Govidrao Advocate and that nothing was paid before the Sub-Registrar under document, Ex. 26 in that case. He admits to have taken a sale-deed from a women who was alleged to be competent to execute a sale-deed and this assertion was given by accused No. 3 and Govindrao to him. Though he belongs to and resides at Gaglegaon and already knew Sangabai, it is impossible to believe this defence of his. In this appeal also accused No. 6 stands convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 60. In Appeal No. 937/75 purchaser accused No. 1 Mariba s/o Bhawanji is an agriculturist of Gaglegaon. He admits that the land purchased belongs to Sangabai and she was in actual physical cultivation thereof. He also paid nothing before the Sub-Registrar, out of the total consideration of Rs. 2500/- under the sale-deed Ex. 23. He admits that he made that payment to accused No. 3 and Advocate Govindrao Madnoorkar. His only defence is that accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar, Advocate led him into a trap and the money is received by them. He also paid nothing before the Sub-Registrar, out of the total consideration of Rs. 2500/- under the sale-deed Ex. 23. He admits that he made that payment to accused No. 3 and Advocate Govindrao Madnoorkar. His only defence is that accused No. 3 and Madnoorkar, Advocate led him into a trap and the money is received by them. He is a resident of Gaglegaon and ought to have known Sangabai who owned 82 Acres of Land and who personally cultivated the lands through her servants. It is impossible to accept his defence. In this appeal also accused No. 6 is guilty and convicted of the offence under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 are convicted under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 61. In Appeal No. 938/75 accused No. 1 purchaser is one Rajeshwar s/o Kishan Mahajan who is an agriculturist of Gaglegaon. He also admits that the land purchased by him is of Sangabai and she is actually cultivating it. According to him accused No. 1 in Appeal No. 927/75 Madhavrao Patil and one Babarao assured him that Sangabai had put her land or sale. They also to led him that accused No. 3 and Advocate Govindrao would arrange for the sale-deed. He claims to have paid Rs. 9000/- to the Sub-Registrar who handed the entire amount to Advocate Govindrao. The document, Ex. 25, however, shows that Rs. 4000/- are shown to have been paid earlier at home and only Rs. 5000/- are offered before the Sub-Registrar. Apart from the fact that he is a resident of Gaglegaon the entire defence taken up by him is false as can be seen from the sale-deed. We are thus satisfied that accused No. 6 in this appeal should be convicted under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 62. In Appeal No. 939 of 1975 the purchaser accsued No. 1 is one Sambhaji s/o Ananda Khairgave, an agriculturist of Gaglegaon. He admits that the land purchased by him belongs to Sangabai, who is actually cultivating it. His only defence is that accused No. 3 and Govindrao Madnoorkar, Advocate, led them into a trap. The money is also received by Advocate Madnoorkar. At the time of the sale-deed, Ex. 25, nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar but Rs. 2000/- were shown to be paid at home. His only defence is that accused No. 3 and Govindrao Madnoorkar, Advocate, led them into a trap. The money is also received by Advocate Madnoorkar. At the time of the sale-deed, Ex. 25, nothing is paid before the Sub-Registrar but Rs. 2000/- were shown to be paid at home. Being a resident of Gaglegaon, he ought to have known Sangabai, a lady owning 82 Acres of land. It is impossible to believe his defence. We therefore reject the defence and hold that accused No. 6 is guilty even in this case under section 467 I.P.C. and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. 63. All the appeals are thus allowed so far as accused Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned, and they are also dismissed so far as accused No. 7 is concerned. In all these 13 appeals we convict accused No. 6 under section 467 and accused Nos. 1 to 5 under section 467 read with section 34 I.P.C. So far as the sentence is concerned, we are told that accused No. 6 has been in jail for about ten months during the trial of this offence and has been in jail for about seven months pending the disposal of these appeals. As the discussion above shows that this crime was organised mainly by accused No. 3 and the purchasers who wanted to strike a cheap deal for the purpose of creating cloud on the title of Sangabai. It may be that there were others who were involved in respect of which we are making our observations hereafter. Accused No. 6 is a poor woman feeding herself on mere manual labour for a paltry consideration and she has been lured to commit this offence by accused No. 3 on the pretext that she would be paid 13 labourers' charges on a sugar farm. We think that in each of these appeals she should be sentenced for that period for which she has been either an under trial prisoner or detained pursuant too the action under section 390 Cri.P.C. All the substantive sentences in the 13 appeals to run concurrently. In the circumstances, we direct that she will be released from the custody forthwith as having already undergone the sentence passed against her, having to the provisions of section 428 Cr. P.C. 64. So far as accused Nos. In the circumstances, we direct that she will be released from the custody forthwith as having already undergone the sentence passed against her, having to the provisions of section 428 Cr. P.C. 64. So far as accused Nos. 1 and 3 in each of these appeals are concerned, they have played the leading role and they seem to be making the most of the profit out of these nefarious transactions. We therefore sentence each one of them under each of the appeals to suffer R. I. for 3 years. Accused No. 1 will surrender to his bail forthwith. Accused No. 3 is already in jail and whatever term he has spent in jail will be set off against this order of conviction under section 428 Cri.P.C. All the substantive sentences in each of these appeals to run concurrently. 65. The roles played by accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 by way of attesting witnesses seem to be mainly due to the blood relationship with accused No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 927/75. We therefore, think that the ends of justice will be met if each one of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 66. In all the appeals the convicted accused shall surrender to their bail. Bail bond of accused No. 7 in each of these appeals to stand cancelled. 67. Before parting with this case, we think that proper justice has not been done either to the complainant or the cause. It is true that her cases were referred to the police for investigation and report under section 202 Cri.P.C. However, such investigations as the police have made disclosed that some others than these accused were involved in the commission of the crime. However, they have not been prosecuted and brought to book. The entire affairs seems to be an organised crime with a possibility of some members of the legal profession at the back. If that is a fact, it would not be proper to ignore the role played by these white collar persons in making illiterate persons tool in their hand. We desire that this matter should be further investigated through the C.I.D. and in this view of ours, the learned Public Prosecutor also joints. If that is a fact, it would not be proper to ignore the role played by these white collar persons in making illiterate persons tool in their hand. We desire that this matter should be further investigated through the C.I.D. and in this view of ours, the learned Public Prosecutor also joints. In the circumstances, we direct that the copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, Home Department, for taking appropriate action in the matter and to bring the other culprits to book. -----