((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 1996 Dinka Tukaram Magdum Applicant versus Ramchandra Tukaram Patil and ors. Respondents Mr.B.R.Patil for applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th January 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the original complainant who has taken an exception to the judgement and order dated 25th September 1996 by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 465 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the appellant is that he is holding the land bearing Gat No.710 of Village Waghapur. The old survey number of the said land was 127, Hissa No.4. The case of the appellant is that on the Eastern side of his ((-2-)) land, there is a land held by the third respondent bearing Gat No.713. The first respondent is Village Talathi and second respondent is the Circle Inspector. The allegation is that the first to third respondents acting fraudulently and without intimation to the appellant made a forgery by recording five trees of Jack Fruit on the 7/12 extract of the land held by the third respondent. The case made out by the appellant is that an entry was made in December 1984 which came to his notice in January 1995. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate under sections 463, 464 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant examined himself and four other witnesses. The finding of the learned Magistrate is that the appellant could not establish the allegations of forgery. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through the impugned judgement, a copy of the complaint and evidence on record. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the respondents. He submitted that the impugned ((-3-)) order is perverse. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the copy of the complaint and notes of evidence. 6. The appellant stepped into the witness box and stated that on the Bandh on the Eastern side of his land there is a Jack Fruit Tree which is in existence for fifty years. He stated that the third respondent is not concerned with the said tree. Till the year 1983-84, the said tree was recorded in the 7/12 extract of the land held by the appellant but in December 1994 the first to third respondents recorded the said tree on the 7/12 extract of the land held by the third respondent. 7. In the cross examination the complainant admitted that for a period of ten years he did not make any complaint of the entry in the 7/12 extract of the land held by the third respondent. He admitted that he had not made any complaint regarding the entry either to the Collector or to the Tahsildar. 8. The second witness examined by the ((-4-)) appellant is one Balaso Tukaram Magdum. He deposed regarding the existence of the said tree for a period of thirty years. The third witness examined by the appellant is Dhondiram Barakale. He also deposed that he had seen the Jack Fruit Tree in existence for forty years. The fourth witness examined by the complainant is Ganpati Hari Barakale. He also deposed regarding existence of the tree. 9. Even if the evidence of the aforesaid witness is taken as true, no offence has been established against the respondents. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a probable view of the matter. No interference can be made with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)