Dismissed

Ishwardas @ Uttam Ambadasji Kalal (Rai) v. a. Shekhar Babu and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2007APPLN/803/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal application challenging the acquittal of respondents accused of offence under Section 465 IPC for forgery in connection with development permission. The court refused to interfere as there was no direct evidence proving the accused fabricated the document.

What did the court decide?

Leave refused and criminal application dismissed; acquittal of respondents upheld.

Ishwardas @ Uttam Ambadasji Kalal (Rai) Vs a. Shekhar… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.803 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006

¶4

Shri Ishwardas Alias Uttam Ambadasji Kalal (Rai)

¶5

..... Applicant.

¶6

V/s

¶7

Shri A. Shekhar Babu & Anr.

¶8

....Respondents.

¶9

Mr. M.S. Karnik for the applicant.

¶10

Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5^th October, 2007

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Applicant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nashik dated 18/01/2006 whereby the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent - accused of the offence punishable under section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Applicant is a builder by profession and he had applied for seeking development permission from the Cantonment Board. The accused was the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board. It is alleged that the accused had made interpolation in respect of the date of the said application in order to deprive the advantage which the

¶15

¶16

complainant could have otherwise derived. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that under the provisions of section 181(6), if no reply is filed within 15 days from the date of notice, the Board was deemed to have given sanction to the plan and the complainant would proceed with the construction without further notice. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused had demanded illegal gratification for sanctioning the plan and since this demand was not met, the said application had been forged and fabricated by altering the date.

¶17

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that though the alteration was proved, it was not established that the accused had forged or fabricated the said letter and, therefore, acquitted the accused.

¶18

I have perused the impugned order. There is admittedly no direct evidence to indicate that the accused had fabricated the said document. The complainant, admittedly, has not examined the handwriting expert to prove that the accused had fabricated the said document and, as such, the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the accused was responsible for making the said alteration. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Leave is, therefore, refused. Application is dismissed. Appeal does not survive.

¶19

Ishwardas @ Uttam Ambadasji Kalal (Rai) v. a. Shekhar Babu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwardas @ Uttam Ambadasji Kalal (Rai) v. a. Shekhar Babu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurath Dagadu Shegade Vs Vitthal Laxman Shegade and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balkrishna Shankar Pisal and Ors.

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nivrutti Seva Sangh Vs Kalavati Devrav Hange

Ramashankar Jhanwar Vs Ramavtar S. Jhanwar and Anr.

The Pune Panjarpole Trust Vs Shri Baban Gabaji Saste and Ors.