Criminal Writ Petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting a revision application seeking to quash charges of forgery for issuing false birth certificates with manipulated dates.
The petition challenging the order rejecting the criminal revision application is 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.
: 1 :
26.wp-590-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2023
Baba Appa Khavare …..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Balasaheb Ligade, Advocate i/b. Drupad S. Patil, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2023
P.C. :
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.
1 of 7
Deshmane(PS)
: 2 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
465, 466, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
the Petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
The concerned registers and the two birth certificates, both issued by the present Petitioner, were seized. They are forming part of the charge-sheet.
2 of 7
: 3 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
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.
The correct entry which was 246 was changed to 246/1 3 of 7
: 4 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
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.
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’.
4 of 7
: 5 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
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.
: 6 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
and it is shown as 246/1. Thus, the entries are manipulated cleverly and deliberately so that entry No.246 is inserted on the earlier page.
6 of 7
: 7 : 26.wp-590-23.odt
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.
Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANE PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANEDate: 2023.12.19 17:35:05 +0530
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient material exists to frame charges against the petitioner for issuing forged birth certificates.
Whether the High Court should set aside the order refusing to frame charges in a criminal revision application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baba Appa Khavare
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
