Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 and original complainant Subhash Kotecha filed Criminal Revision Application No. 434 of 1999 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the acquittal of three accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, in Regular Criminal Case No. 78 of 1995. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 420, 468, 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly forging a librarian training certificate to secure approval and salary for Respondent No. 2, Anil Choudhary, who lacked the qualification. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the school Headmaster and Secretary, used the genuine certificate of PW3 Ramesh Malwad to create forged documents. The trial court acquitted all accused. The State argued that forgery could be proved by attending circumstances and admissions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were not properly considered. The accused contended that the Investigating Officer was not examined and the actual forger was not identified. The oral judgment was delivered on January 15, 2010, but the extract provided does not contain the final decision or ratio.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 1999
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 69
Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 with Criminal Revision Application No. 434 of 1999
Smt. B.R. Khekale, Shri V.C. Solshe, Shri A.S. Shelke
The State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999); Subhash Ganesh Kocheta (Petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 434 of 1999)
Mahadeo Bhimrao Jangale, Anil Dattatraya Choudhary, Namdeo Ramrao Pawar (Respondents in both cases); The State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 4 in revision only)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal and revision against acquittal in a cheating and forgery case involving the use of a fake librarian training certificate to obtain appointment and salary from government funds.
Remedy Sought
The appellant State and revision petitioner original complainant sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the three accused for offences under Sections 420, 468, 464 read with 34, IPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused, which the State and complainant believed was erroneous as forgery and cheating were provable through attending circumstances and admissions under Section 313 CrPC, contrary to the trial court’s view.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, in Regular Criminal Case No. 78 of 1995, rendered a judgment on 17.08.1999 acquitting all three accused of the charges.
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that forgery can be proved by attending circumstances without eye witnesses; the trial court ignored relevant evidence and admissions under Section 313 CrPC.
Accused argued that the Investigating Officer was not examined, the actual forger was not identified, and a person could be appointed without a library training certificate.
Judgment Excerpts
forgery can be proved even by the attending circumstances and not necessarily by producing evidence of eye witnesses.
the trial court failed to appreciate that forgery can be proved even by the attending circumstances
in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 Anil Choudhary and other accused admitted certain facts while answering question Nos.3,7,9 and 10.
admitted position that accused No.3 Namdeo Pawar was working as Secretary... accused No.1 Mahadeo Jangale was working as Head Master.
Anil has worked as a librarian in the academic year 199394 and he left the services in the middle of academic year 199495.
Anil passed examination of librarian in the year 1994 under seat No.197.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by PW4 Subhash Kocheta at Ausa Police Station leading to registration of offences under Sections 464, 468, 420 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa as Regular Criminal Case No. 78 of 1995. Prosecution examined five witnesses. On 17.08.1999, the trial court acquitted all three accused. The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 and the original complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 434 of 1999, both heard together by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 468, 464, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
