FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2346 OF 2009 WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO.2469 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.N.C.Garud, Adv., for the applicant in CR.A.No.2346/2009 Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant in Criminal. Application no.2469/2009. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP for the respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24/7/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard Counsel. Agricultural field owned by Rangnath Ganpat Shinde to the extent of 25 R. is sold by virtue of an indenture dt.31st July, 2007, in favour of Shivaji Sudam Ukande. Present applications are by the purchaser Shivaji Sudam Ukande and the executant of the sale deed, namely, Anna Baburao Gaikwad. 2. There is no controversy that the owner of the property expired way back in 1997 and was not alive on the date of execution of the sale deed, to execute the sale deed. 3. Mr.Garud, Counsel, contended that his client is bona fide purchaser, he was not aware that the original owner is not alive and that he has been cheated and, he is consequently, innocent. 4. Mr.Deshmukh, Counsel, contended, it is his client who is sufferer as, indeed, Shivaji, the alleged purchaser, is a property agent, he represented Anna to be owner of the property in question, and since it was a purchase, Anna under bona fide belief attended the office of the Registrar, Ahmednagar, however, he subsequently learnt that the document reflected that Anna is shown as a seller of the property, misrepresenting himself as Rangnath Ganpat Shinde. 5. The Counsel also informs, had there been any ill motive on the part of Anna, he could not have signed as Anna Gaikwad, as is apparent on the sale deed and power before this Court. Both the Counsel contended, custodial interrogation of the accused/applicants is not desired. The matter of the controversy, the sale deed, is with the Police and hence, they be enlarged on bail. 6. The factual matrix of the matter indicated hereinabove cannot be controverted. The fact remains, when Anna, being not owner of the property, misrepresented himself and executed the sale deed in favour of other accused Shivaji Sudam Ukande, bare perusal of the sale deed indicates that it was purchase for Rs.1,05,000/- for irrigated property of 25 R. in the vicinity of highly potential area in Nagar district. That apart, the four boundaries in the sale deed also display that the parties were casual while executing the transaction as they did not take care to refer in the body of the document as to what is the access to the property. The entire recitals in the sale deed, if taken logically, it is more leaning to illustrate, it was only an illusory transaction which is apparently established. 7. The recovery of the sale deed in original from the office of the Registrar, by itself, will not culminate, resulting in release of the accused on bail. Investigation is in progress. Chargesheet is to be filed. The modus operandi of the accused is to be discovered. I do not find any merit in the applications, they are accordingly rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/crapln2346-09