1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.891 OF 2009 Ankush Dashrath Barde and another. Applicants. v e r s u s The State of Maharashtra and two others. Respondents. Shri S.B.Rohile Advocate for applicants. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP for State R­1 and 2. Respondent No.3 served. CORAM : [ K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :­ 1. Heard the learned counsel and APP. 2. The accused applicant seeks to quash the criminal prosecution filed vide RCC No. 6/2009 before the J.M.F.C. Kandhar for the offence u/s 420, 463, 468 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3­ The complainant Jaywant Shankar Phad informed police on 05.01.2009 that the accused No.1 village Sarpanch , accused No.2 Talathi of the village, accused No.3 Agricultural surveyor while accused No.4 is the Taluka Agriculture officer have deceived the government. The present application is on behalf of accused nos. 3 and 4 the Government employees. The crux of the matter revolves about plantation by virtue of resolution dated 12.05.2006 of 400 mango trees in 2 land gat No.162. However, though revenue record was produced it indicates that there was no such plantation. Government was informed that on 09.04.2007 that plantation of 400 mango trees had taken place in the land gat No.162 and consequently amount of Rs.31,500/­ were received by cheque and en cash. 4. The counsel submits that indeed there was plantation, in gat No. 264 for which there was an affidavit of Shivaji Thombale showing that 326 mango trees were planted in land gat no.264 which are of approximately two years old. 5. At this stage of the matter, acting merely on the affidavit of the officer by itself is not sufficient. The defence that accused does not propose to deceive may be true but the fact of resolution whether on 12.05.2006 giving the 7/12 extract of land gat No.162 then informing Government on 09.04.2007 of plantation in land gat No.162 itself speaks of primafacie intention of accused/applicant which conjointly affects the concerned. 6. Hence, no quashment of the proceedings. Observations are primafacie in nature. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/891.09