50,000/- as court inspection fees and Rs. 45,000/- as architect fees. The complainant has paid the amount as demanded by Shashikant Raut. Shashikant Raut also passed on two receipts purported to have been signed by the officer of DRT. Thereafter when the complainant showed the documents to the lawyers it was revealed that the documents were forged. It was also thereafter learnt that Shashikant has no concern with DRT and he was working as a clerk in the office of some advocate. On coming to know the said facts, the complainant filed FIR with the police. However, as no cognizance was taken, the complainant was constrained to file a private complaint before JMFC who in turn passed an order under section 156(3), directing enquiry be conducted. After passing of the said order, police have registered the offence and investigated the case. During the investigation so far conducted, it is revealed that the two receipts purportedly issued by DRT were forged and not issued by the office. It is also found by the police from the register of DRT that the letter heads of DRT are also forged. The order passed by DRT in some other proceedings, is shown to have been passed in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Palghar Rolling Mills P.Ltd.
