1 CR.R.A. NO.99/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.99/2006 Hanumandas s/o Jagannath Kabra, Age 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o Killa Road, Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Satyanarayan s/o Jagannath Kabra, Age 62 years, Occ. Business, r/o Killa Road, Nanded. 2. The State of Maharashtra (Through Police Station, Itwara) ...RESPONDENT ... Mrs.M.S.Jagtap, Adv., for Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. R.R.Sancheti, Adv., h/f Mr. R.R.Mantri, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:4-3-2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. By this revision, complainant 2 CR.R.A. NO.99/2006 questions the legality of acquittal recorded in RCC No.1216/2001, by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, for an offense under Sections 420, 464 of IPC. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the death certificate of Dharamdas was illegally procured by respondent Satyanarayan and he has also utilized property of other brothers. 3. Three brothers partitioned immoveable properties in the year 1987 as per the decree recorded in RCS No.903/1987. Bhagwandas was younger, Satyanarayan is elder in the family. Bhagwandas was not seen since 2000, his whereabouts were not known. It was alleged, on 25.7.2000, Satyanarayan/respondent informed Municipal Corporation, Nanded, his brother Bhagwandas expired on 11.9.1999. Consequent thereupon, a death certificate of Bhagwandas dt. 6.10.1999 was issued by the competent authorities. 4. Two witnesses were put in by the petitioner; he, himself, at Exh.20 and PW No.2 Mirza Arshad of the Corporation. The record, as stated earlier, illustrated, since 1976, the brothers are not sailing well over distribution of immoveable property and the learned Judge making inquiry found that the witnesses, in 3 CR.R.A. NO.99/2006 particular, PW No.2, could not establish that the documentation before the authorities was furnished by the respondent. The death certificate was terminated by orders of Deputy Director of Health, as per letter dt.7.8.2008. However, it was not cancelled. 5. Another aspect that was urged was the respondent made a false representation by furnishing documents dt.6.10.1999, by forging signature on construction permission in respect of the property of Bhagwandas, however, the prosecution failed to indicate that these signatures on the purported documents were of respondent. No specimen signatures were obtained to verify genuineness of the disputed signatures or of the admitted signatures. There was nothing to illustrate that, the signatures of Dharamdas were referred for test to the handwriting expert. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse requiring interference. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1973 SC 2622 ( Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra) indicated that, the Courts dealing with the matters of acquittal should be very slow and only in cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court is unreasonable one and, if 4 CR.R.A. NO.99/2006 the findings recorded by the trial Courts project perversity, non application of mind and non appreciation of evidence, then only interference in acquittal is called upon. Applying these tests, I do not find any error on the part of the learned Judge. Consequently, revision lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/99-06crra