Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 882 (BOM)

Namdeo Shankarrao Gawande v. State of Maharashtra

2009-07-20

R.Y.GANOO

body2009
Judgment :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant faced trial before learned Magistrate, Chandur (Rly) in Criminal Case No. 148/1997. The applicant was convicted under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The applicant was also convicted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was also ordered to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The applicant had filed Criminal Appeal No. 4/2006 in the District Court, Amravati. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 23.01.2008 and the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Magistrate was confirmed except one clarification that the conviction under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code was ordered to be replaced by conviction under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Against this judgment dated 23.01.2008, this revision application has been filed under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The prosecution story, in short, is as under:- Land Gat No. 199 situated at village Wadgaon Rajdi, district Amravati is “E” class Government land. According to the prosecution, the applicant was entrusted with blank 7/12 extract duly signed by Sadashiv Lavale (PW2), Talathi of the village, so that in case cultivators want certified copy of the 7/12 extract in regard to their property said 7/12 extracts can be released in their favour during the absence of Sadashiv (PW2), who was required to leave the station. According to the prosecution, the applicant misused these blank 7/12 extracts duly signed by Sadashiv. According to the prosecution, the applicant misused these blank 7/12 extracts duly signed by Sadashiv. According to the prosecution, the applicant forged the said 7/12 extract showing his name as holder of the land and misrepresented to one Ramadevi Ramesh Agrawal (PW4) that he is owner of the said land and executed conveyance in favour of said Ramadevi on 05.08.1996 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The said 7/12 extract shown to Ramabai is at Exh.-18 and the original sale deed is at Exh.-22. According to the prosecution, the applicant, by preparing a forged 7/12 extract Exh.-18, represented to Ramadevi that he is owner of the land and induced said Ramadevi to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- knowing fully well that the land is owned by the Government and it cannot be sold by him. At trial, Bhagwansingh Siddhu (PW1), Naib Tashildar, Chandur Railway, Sadashiv (PW2) Talathi and Ramesh Agrawal (PW3), husband of Ramabai Agrawal, Ramabai Agrawal (PW4) were examined as prosecution witnesses and on consideration of the record, the learned Magistrate passed the order convicting the applicant as mentioned aforesaid. His appeal also came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. I have heard Mrs. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for the State. In order to test the case of prosecution, it was necessary for the Court to check up as to how 7/12 extract in the name of the applicant came to be prepared. The evidence of Sadashiv (PW2) goes to show that he was required to go out of his headquarters for office work and for the sake of convenience, as a matter of practice, he used to keep signed blank 7/12 extracts so that applicant would be able to attend to that job. Sadashiv (PW2) has categorically stated in his evidence that on 15.08.1996, he was required to leave his headquarters and to enable the present applicant to issue 7/12 extract to the cultivators, he had prepared signed blank 7/12 extract and entrusted them to the present applicant. He further stated that he used to keep copies of those 7/12 extracts in the cupboard and one key of the same used to be retained by him and the other key used to be handed over to the applicant. He further stated that he used to keep copies of those 7/12 extracts in the cupboard and one key of the same used to be retained by him and the other key used to be handed over to the applicant. He further stated that he told the applicant to mention the entry in the signed blank 7/12 extract as per the record and issue it to the cultivators. He stated that on 15.08.1996 he had to go to village Dipori for flag hoisting and he was out of town that is how the blank 7/12 extract came to used by the applicant. 6. I have, with the assistance of learned Advocates for both the sides, perused the evidence and documents at Exh.-18, 7/12 extract and the sale deed. 7. It can be said that the system adopted by Sadashiv (PW2) to put his signature on blank 7/12 extracts and make it readily available to the applicant to issue it to the cultivators is wrong practice. However, the record is very clear that the applicant knew that 7/12 extract bears the signature of his superior Sadashiv and the said 7/12 extract may be used to bring into existence a 7/12 extract showing certain person as holder of the land in regard to the property. It is seen that 7/12 extract Exh.-18 stands in the name of the applicant. He is shown as holder of the land. Exh.-22 also clearly mentions that the applicant is the vendor and Ramabai is purchaser. The said sale deed also mentions that the applicant is owner of the said land and that is how land admeasuring 1 hectare 62 R bearing Gat No. 199 is sought to be conveyed to Ramabai. 8. Both the Courts below have considered the matter from this angle namely once the land is owned by Government, by no stretch of imagination it can be shown as land owned by an individual and thus the charge of cheating was held to be proved. The land being owned by the Government, it was not possible to show the same in the name of the applicant. The testimony of Sadashiv clearly shows that the applicant was entrusted with blank 7/12 extracts and out of those 7/12 extracts, one was utilised by the applicant to show that he is the owner of the land. The land being owned by the Government, it was not possible to show the same in the name of the applicant. The testimony of Sadashiv clearly shows that the applicant was entrusted with blank 7/12 extracts and out of those 7/12 extracts, one was utilised by the applicant to show that he is the owner of the land. He, therefore, cheated Ramabai, made her believe that with the land is owned by the applicant. 9. After having read the judgment delivered by learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional sessions Judge, I am inclined to observe that both the Courts have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The arguments advanced by Ms. Deshpande, Advocate that both the Courts erred in convicting the applicant for the offence, for which he was convicted, cannot be accepted. According to Ms. Deshpande, prosecution has not been able to prove that 7/12 extracts were misused by the applicant. As against this, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the evidence of Sadashiv (PW2) is complete and conclusive for conviction of the applicant. Sadashiv (PW2) has categorically stated that he is conversant with the handwriting of the applicant and the handwriting on 7/12 extract Exh.-18 is that of the applicant. This is a clinching evidence. Sadashiv is a person under whom the applicant was working as Kotwal and hence, evidence of Sadashiv that he was conversant with the hand writing of Kotwal, is acceptable and could not have been challenged by the applicant. 10. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has been able to make out case against the applicant that is why the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant and the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order convicting the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment. 11. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, Ms. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant, submitted that lenient view could have been taken. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The applicant showed courage to show to the others that the land owned by the Government is owned by him and he induced Ramabai (PW4) to purchase the land for a large amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant, submitted that lenient view could have been taken. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The applicant showed courage to show to the others that the land owned by the Government is owned by him and he induced Ramabai (PW4) to purchase the land for a large amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The Courts below, in fact, have shown mercy to the applicant and there is no need to interfere in the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, which sentence has been duly confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 12. In view of above, the present revision application is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.