Shri.Ramchandra Laxman Shinde Vs Shri.Rudrappa Pandurang Punekar and Ors.

2.	The private compla	int was f	iled by t	he Applicant
against	the Respondents	N	os.1	to 4	herein	alleging
commission	of offence	pun	ishable	under se	ction 465	read
with	section 34 of	the	Indian	Penal Code	and in	the
alternative	for the off	ence	pun	ishable under	section	420
read	with section 34	of	the	Indian Penal	Code.	The
Respondent	No.1 was	the	owne	r of the	house	property
situated	at Vita. Ac	cording	t	o the	case of	the
Applicant,	the 1st Res	pondent	ag	reed to sell	the	house
property	to the A	pplicant		for c	onsideration	of
Rs.2,60,000/	- and he	paid	Rs	.1,05,000/- t	o the	1st

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

Respondent	as an earne	st money. According to	the	case
of	the Applicant th	e 1st Respondent executed		agreement
for sale	in favour of	the Applicant and an	assuranc	e was
given	by the 1st	Respondent to the Applicant	that	he
will	clear encumbrances	created in favour	of	Vita
Merchants	Bank. The	1st Respondent avoided t	o	execute
the	sale deed in	favour of the Applicant	and	therefore,
the	Applicant issued	a registered notice	dated	3rd
January	1984 through	his Advocate and called	upon	the
1st	Respondent to exec	ute conveyance. The case	of	the
Applicant	is that af	ter notice was issued	by	the
Advocate	for the Appli	cant on 5th January 1984	the	1st
Respondent	purportedly	executed a sale deed in		respect
of the	property in que	stion in favour of the	4th	accused
Shankar	Nagesh Divate.	The said sale	deed	was
registered	with the	office of the Sub-Registrar	on	10th
January	1984. Acc	ording to the case of the		Applicant
the s	aid sale deed	was executed on the basis	of	the

¶15

ante-dated agreement dated 3rd January 1984 allegedly

¶16

executed in favour of the said Shankar Divate.

¶17

3.		The l	earned tri	al Judge	held th	at the Applic	ant
has	failed	to	prove	that	in	between	20th	November	1983
to	5th	March	198	4	both	the	accused	persons	in
furtherance		of	their	com	mon	intention	created	a	forged
and	fabrica	ted	docu	ment	in	favour	of the	said	Shankar
Divate	in	order	to	defra	ud	the App	licant.	The	learned

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

The

¶20

trial Judge	also	held that	the	Applicant failed	to	prove
that on	20th	November	1983	the accused	persons	in
furtherance	of	their	co	mmon intention	dis	honestly
induced the		Applicant to	hand	over a	sum	of
Rs.1,05,000/- as earn	est mon	ey in token of executio	n of

¶21

an agreement for sale by making false representation.

¶22

4.		The	learne	d Advocat	e for the Ap	plicant	submitted
that	the	tria	l	Court	was	unne	cessarily	impressed	by the
fact	that	the		original		docume	nts	produced	by the
Applicant	were		with	drawn	by		him	and the	original
documents		were		not	produced	th	ereafter.	He	submitted
that	the	forge	ry	alleged	was	in	respect	of an	agreement
which	was	in	the	custod	y of	the	accused.	He	submitted
that	the	evid	ence	on	record	shows	that	with a	view to

¶23

pressurise the said Shankar Divate the agreement for

¶24

sale was executed in favour of the Applicant.

¶25

5.		I have	considered	the	submiss	ions.
Applicant		produced	the		original		documents on	which	he
was	r	elying upon	alo	ng	with	the	list at	Exh.71.	By
making		an applicat	ion	at	Exh	.71	he took	back	the
documents.		Later	on	an	applic	ation	was made	at	Exh.77
by t	h	e Applicant	for		iss	uing	witness	summons	for
production		of	the sa	id	origina	l	documents	which	were
allegedly		produced	by	t	he A	pplic	ant in	Special	Civil
Suit		No.100 of	1986		filed		by him	for	specific

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

performance	of the agreement	dat	ed 20th Novemb	er	1983.
The said	application was		allowed. How	ever,	the
Applicant	himself applied	vide	Exh.78 contend	ing	that
the original	documents have	not	been filed in	the	said
suit filed	by him and he	will	file the same	in	the
complaint a	fter tracing out	the	said documents.		Till
completion	of trial, the Ap	plicant	did not pro	duce	the
said documen	ts though on	an	application made	by	the
Accused	persons, the trial	C	ourt directed	the	Applicant
to produce	the original docum	ents.	It was the	case	of
the Applicant	himself that	on	20th Novemb	er	1983
agreement	for sale was	exec	uted by dishone	stly	inducing
the Complainant	to hand over	a	sum of Rs.1,05	,000/-.	It
is in	this context that	the	learned trial	Judge	has
found fault	with the Applic	ant.	The Applicant	cam	e out
with a	case that he had	prod	uced the document	s in	the
civil suit	which was found	to	be incorrect on	his	own
showing.	The Applicant	being	the Comp	lainant,	the
burden of	proving the guilt	of	the accused pe	rsons	was
on the	Applicant. Viewe	d w	ith this persp	ective,	the
learned trial	Judge was	right	in holding	that	the

¶28

Applicant has withheld the best evidence from the Court.

¶29

The learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the observations made by the learned trial Judge that it is the contention of the 1st Respondent that with a view to pressurise the said Shankar Divate the

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

agreement	for	sale	was	e	xecuted i	n	favour	of	the
Applicant.		After	makin	g	this obse	rvation,	the		learned
trial	Judge	has	recorded	a	finding	that	there	is	some
variance	in	the	deposit	ion	recorded	in E	nglish	and	in
Marathi	and	the	Mar	athi	version	ap	pears	to	be
consistent.		The	learned	Ju	dge also	noted	the	fac	t that
the suit	for	specifi	c p	erform	ance filed	b	y	the	Applicant
failed.	The	view	taken	by	the lear	ned	trial	Judge	is a
possible	view	which	can	be	taken on	the	basis	of	the
evidence	on	record.		Merely	because	other	view	can	be
taken	is	not a	groun	d	to entertain	the	App	eal	against

¶32

acquittal. No case is made out for grant of leave. The

¶33

Application is rejected.

¶34

Judge.

Shri.Ramchandra Laxman Shinde v. Shri.Rudrappa Pandurang Punekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Ramchandra Laxman Shinde v. Shri.Rudrappa Pandurang Punekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mustaq Ismail Memon and 4 Ors.

Munaf K. Vadgama and Anr. Vs Dinesh N. Kotecha and Ors.

Bhanumati Shyamnarain Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Vijay Nimbalkar Vs Deepali Vijay Hande

Vs

Prakash Vanzara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.