Dismissed

Balu Appa Khavare v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Dec 2023WP/590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a revision application and the confirmation of discharge, the High Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders. The Court held that sufficient material existed to frame charges against the petitioner, who issued birth certificates based on a manifestly forged register entry involving interpolation. Consequently, the petition was dismisse

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the impugned orders suffered no infirmity and sufficient material existed for framing charges.

Balu Appa Khavare Vs State of Maharashtra — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

26.wp-590-23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2023

¶5

Baba Appa Khavare …..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Balasaheb Ligade, Advocate i/b. Drupad S. Patil, for the
Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶9

DATE : 19^th DECEMBER, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶12

13.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadhinglaj, District-Kolhapur rejecting Criminal Revision
Application No.12/2022. The Revision Application arose out of
the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class
(1st Court), Chandgad in R.C.C. No.31/2018. By the order
dated 9.6.2022, the learned Magistrate rejected the Petitioner’s
application for discharge. Said order was confirmed by the
Revisional Court, as mentioned earlier.

¶13

2.The Applicant is facing the charges under Sections

¶14

1 of 7

¶15

Deshmane(PS)

¶16

: 2 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶17

465, 466, 471 read with 34 of IPC.

¶18

3.Heard Mr. Balasaheb Ligade, learned counsel for

¶19

the Petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.

¶20

4.The prosecution case is that the Petitioner was
working as Gramsevak with Mangaon Grampanchayat. The
accused No.2 was the Senior Clerk. Both of them in collusion
with the accused No.3 Sampada Pravin Gudvalekar nee
Khandekar issued a birth certificate showing her date of birth as
‘18.10.1992’. It was based on a forged entry in the register. Her
correct date of birth is ‘18.10.1995”. Thus, they have
committed this offence together.

¶21

5.The FIR was lodged by Nayab Tahsildar Rajaram
Jhajari vide C.R. No.22/2018 at Chandgad police station on
23.2.2018 making the same allegations. The investigation was
carried out. The statements of various witnesses were recorded.

¶22

The concerned registers and the two birth certificates, both
issued by the present Petitioner, were seized. They are forming
part of the charge-sheet.

¶23

2 of 7

¶24

: 3 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶25

6.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he

¶26

was working with the same Grampanchayat between the period
2013 to 2018 only. He was not concerned for maintaining the
registers regarding births in that area in the year 1992 or 1995.
He has merely acted upon the entries from the register and it is
also the prosecution case that those registers do have those
entries and, therefore, he has not committed any offence. He
further submitted that the explanation offered by the accused
No.2 shows that the birth certificates were prepared by the said
accused No.2 in his handwriting and the present Petitioner has
merely signed those certificates. He submitted that the
Petitioner, therefore, has not committed any offence. He
submitted that the birth certificates were based on the
information maintained in those two registers.

¶27

7.Learned APP opposed these submissions. He invited

¶28

my attention to the charge-sheet and in particular to two birth
certificates and the relevant pages of the registers maintained in
the year 1992 and 1995. He submitted that there is clear
interpolation of entry No.246 around month of October, 1992.

¶29

The correct entry which was 246 was changed to 246/1

¶30

3 of 7

¶31

: 4 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶32

pertaining to some other person. The forged entry was made
below entry No.245 and it was an interpolation. He submitted
that both the certificates were issued within a short span of
around sixteen days and the Petitioner himself had not
expressed any suspicion or had not raised any doubt while
issuing those certificates. He further submitted that the registers
were in the custody of the present Petitioner and, therefore, he
was rightly the prime accused in the present case.

¶33

8.I have considered these submissions. The two

¶34

certificates were issued in respect of the accused No.3 by the
present Petitioner. The first certificate was dated 1.2.2018. It
was issued under the signature of the Petitioner. The date of
registration of the birth is mentioned as ‘22.10.1992’ and the
date of birth of accused No.3 is mentioned as ‘18.10.1992’. The
second birth certificate was dated 17.2.2018. The date of
registration of the birth was mentioned as ‘31.10.1995’. The
date of birth of accused No.3 was mentioned as ‘18.10.1995’.

¶35

9.The prosecution case is that the accused No.3 had
used the birth certificate showing her birth date as ‘18.10.1992’

¶36

4 of 7

¶37

: 5 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶38

for making an application for the post of Police Patil. Her
correct date of birth was ‘18.10.1995’, but, to fit in the age
bracket the wrong date of birth and for that purpose a forged
document was used. The charge-sheet, as rightly pointed out
by learned APP, shows the extracts of two registers maintained
in October, 1992 and October, 1995.

¶39

10. The register of the year 1995 correctly shows the entry of the accused No.3’s name at entry No.240. According to the prosecution this is the correct entry and the register was maintained properly. There is no interpolation in the entry or other entries in the extract of that particular register. The offence is committed in respect of the register maintained for October, 1992. Below the entry No.245, a forged entry in the name of the accused No.3 is interpolated showing her date of birth as ‘18.10.1992’. In the sequence, the earlier entries were for the dates 20^th October, 21^st October, 22 October 1992. The extract is shown by learned APP of 1995. The subsequent entries No.247 onward also show the subsequent dates of 25.10.1992. Apart from that, on the next page, there appears entry No.246 as the original entry. However, it is manipulated 5 of 7

¶40

: 6 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶41

and it is shown as 246/1. Thus, the entries are manipulated

¶42

cleverly and deliberately so that entry No.246 is inserted on the
earlier page.

¶43

11.From this record it is quite apparent that there was
forgery in the register itself based on which a certificate
showing date of birth of accused No.3 as ‘18.10.1992’ was
issued.

¶44

12.The registers maintained with the Grampanchayat
were available to the Petitioner in his capacity as Gramsevak.
He was handling those registers. The birth certificates were also
issued after referring to the registers. Therefore, it is quite
apparent that those registers were available to the Petitioner.
He has issued two birth certificates showing different dates of
birth within a span of 16 days. He has not raised any suspicion.

¶45

13.The second certificate was issued because a

¶46

complaint was made suspecting the genuineness of the date of
birth mentioned in the first certificate. The Petitioner, on his
own, had not taken any steps to verify as to why there were two
different dates of birth in respect of the same person.

¶47

6 of 7

¶48

: 7 : 26.wp-590-23.odt

¶49

14.Thus, at this stage, there is sufficient material

¶50

against the present Petitioner for framing of the charges. I do
not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. At this stage, it
is not possible to record a finding in favour of the Petitioner that
he has not committed or he is not concerned with the
commission of said offence. With the result, the Petition cannot
be allowed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶51

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANE PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANEDate: 2023.12.19 17:35:05 +0530

¶52

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶53

7 of 7

Balu Appa Khavare v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Appa Khavare v. State of Maharashtra

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

Subodh Vijay Patwardhan Vs Manoj Bhalchandra Patil and Anr.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., Kalwan through Sahebrao Nimba Pawar and Anr.

Tribhuvan Nath Tiwari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepanjali Shivanand Potdar Vs M/S. Matter Toys (India ) Pvt. Ltd., and Anr.

Kadiri Muhammad Ali Vs State of Maharashtra

Balu Appa Khavare Vs State of Maharashtra