1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3246 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 3614 & 3477 OF 2009 Prakash Sadashiv Salvi Suresh Babu Mhatre Shashikant Raut ......... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. R.S. Dave adv. for the Applicant in Appln.No. 3246/09 Mr. Ganesh K. Gole for the applicant in Appn. No. 3614/09 Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for the applicant in Appln. No. 3477/09. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP. for the Respondent/State. In Appln Nos. 3246 & 3614/09 and Mrs. P.P. Shinde APP in Appln No. 3477/09. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th August, 2009. P. C.: 1. The application no.3246/09 is filed by one Prakash Salvi whereas application no. 3614/09 is filed by Suresh Mhatre and the last application No.3477/09 is filed by one Shashikant Raut. The applications are filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C, as the applicants are apprehending arrest in C.R. No.I-237/09 registered at Rabale police station for offence under sections 406, 420, 467 read with 34 of IPC. 2 2. The complainant is the Managing Director of a company by name Dynamic Volves Private Limited. It is the case of the complainant that he was looking for an industrial plot in the MIDC industrial area and hence he had approached the applicants Prakash Salvi and Suresh Mhatre who were acting as an Estate Brokers in that area. The said two brokers along with Shashikant Raut had met the complainant in his office and Prakash Salvi and Suresh Mhatre introduced Shashikant Raut as an officer working in Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bellard Estate, Mumbai. Shashikant Raut informed the complainant that there is an industrial plot/factory available for sale with DRT. The said industrial plot/factory was stated to be that of M/s. Palghar Rolling Mills Private Limited at Rabale MIDC. Shashikant Raut introduced him as an authority in DRT, invested with power to finalise the price of the mortgaged property. The property was mortgaged with State Bank of India. Shashikant showed some documents signed by the Presiding Officer Mr. Sampat of DRT and some letters bearing stamp of the Presiding Officer. Shashikant Raut further informed the complainant that he has very good relations with Mr. Sampat , the Presiding Officer and hence he can reduce the price of the plot. The complainant was informed by Shashikant Raut that the value of the mortgaged property is more than 100 crores whereas he could fetch it for complainant for Rs. 25 crores only. Shashikant Raut then informed the complainant that the proposal/quotation has to be given to DRT and an amount of Rs. 2 lacs needs to be deposited as token amount/earnest money and Rs. 3 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. 3. In the above set of facts the learned counsel for the two applicants by name Prakash Salvi and Suresh Mhatre contended that the said two applicants have only introduced Shashikant Raut to the complainant and they have not played any role. In the submission of the learned counsel, they are estate brokers working in some other area and hence had 4 introduced Shashikant Raut as he happens to be a person in know of the properties in MIDC. Whereas the learned counsel for the applicant Shashikant Raut, submitted that it would be too premature to treat the receipts as forged and/or handed over by Shashikant Raut, and it is submitted that the said applicant has not committed any offence. 4. Per contra the learned APP has produced the investigation papers, especially the correspondence entered into with the Registrar of DRT, wherein the Registrar has informed the concerned PSI about the receipts purportedly issued by the office of the DRT being forged and the letter heads as well being forged. According to the learned APP this appears to be a racket operating. The submission is that as the letter heads of a quasi judicial authority and the receipts from the said office are forged, besides there being possibility of even orders passed by DRT being forged, a serious view of the matter be taken having regard to the modus operandi adopted in the commission of the offence. I am prima facie of the view that the applicants are connected with the crime. In my view this is not a fit case for release of the applicants by allowing the present applications. Hence the applications moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail stand rejected. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)