The single judge dismissed an application seeking quashing of the framing of charges for theft, forgery, and cheating. The court held that an expert opinion is not conclusive and other evidence existed, so the magistrate was correct to frame charges.
Application seeking quashing of framing of charges dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2941 OF 2009
Deepak Banwarilal Saraf ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar for the applicant.
Ms. S.V. Gajare APP for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 6th November 2009
P.C.
petitioner along with accused no.2 in furtherance of the common intention committed a forgery of a valuable document (affidavit and declaration dated 2nd December 1994) to claim that they had a right over the property belonging to the State. According to the applicant, he has not committed forgery and the declaration does not bear his signatures. The document was sent to the handwriting expert who has given an opinion that the alleged signature was not made by the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, learned counsel submits that there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner is guilty of an offence of forgery and therefore, the Magistrate erred in framing a charge against him.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order of framing charges based on a handwriting expert's opinion that signatures were not forged was erroneous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Banwarilal Saraf
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
