Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Pundlik Vishvanath Bangadkar, was the Secretary of Ganesh Shikshan Sanstha, Bhendra. The complainant, Anandrao Wanjari, was the President. In a meeting held on 29-10-1992, elections were conducted. The accused allegedly forged the signatures of the complainant, Devendra Gaikwad, Sau. Hiravati Panchabhai, and Ragho Selokar on a change report and consent letters, and submitted them to the society. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for two months, three months, and three months respectively, with fines. The appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara was dismissed. The accused then filed a criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses, and the report of the handwriting expert. The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The revision was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Forgery - Sections 465, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - Accused Secretary forged signatures of President and members on change report and consent letters to manipulate society records - Trial court and appellate court concurrently found guilt based on expert evidence and witness testimony - High Court in revision found no perversity or illegality - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless grossly perverse (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law and on facts.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Forgery
- Using forged documents as genuine
- Standard of proof in criminal revision
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Appreciation of evidence in forgery cases
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 296
Criminal Revision Application No. 193 of 2010
Shri H. D. Dangre for applicant, Shri B. M. Lonare for State, Shri A. R. Sambre for non-applicant no. 2
Pundlik s/o Vishvanath Bangadkar
The State of Maharashtra, Pandhari s/o Ragho Selokar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for forgery and using forged documents as genuine.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for forging signatures on a change report and consent letters related to a society election.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni convicted the applicant under Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC. The Sessions Judge, Bhandara dismissed the appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2009 on 30-09-2010.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC is sustainable.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in revision.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the evidence was insufficient and the findings were perverse.
The State and complainant supported the concurrent findings and argued that the revision should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence, including expert testimony, cannot be interfered with in revision unless they are perverse or illegal. The court found no such perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant is convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code...
Said judgment was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2009 and the appeal came to be dismissed by judgment dated 30-09-2010.
Procedural History
The applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, Bhandara, who dismissed the appeal. He then filed the present criminal revision before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 465, 468, 471
