1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.1139/2006 Applicants 1] Dattatraya s/o Ramji Khupase, aged about 36 years, Occ. Agriculturist 2] Pandurang s/o Ramji Khupase, aged about 45 years,Occ. Agriculturist, 3] Ramji s/o Motiram Khupase, aged about 75 years,r/o Agriculturist Nos. 1 to 3 all R/o Karanja (Lad) Tq. Karanja Distt. Washim. No. 2 R/o Somthana, Tq. Manora, Distt. Washim. Non-applicants 1. The State of Maharashtra through P.S. O., Manora, Distt. Washim. 2. Sugandhabai Narayan Sakharkar, aged about 50 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Somthana, Tah. Manora, District Washim. ... Mr. Gopal Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.D. Sonk, Advocate A. P. P. for respondent no.1 Mr. Lalwani, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sonkar, learned A. P. P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2] Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to convert the present application into Criminal Revision application. Leave granted. The present matter is disposed of as Criminal Revision Application. 3] By this Criminal Revision Application, the applicants take exception to the order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 29/2004 by which the prayer of the applicants for discharge under Sections 420 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected. By the impugned order, the trial Court has discharged the applicants of the offences punishable under Section 3(2) (iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). 4] Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is absolutely no material in the entire charge-sheet which implicate the applicants in commission of offences either under Section 420 or Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Mishra, F.I.R. as well as statements, at the most, 3 implicate Sanjay Khupase and not the applicants. 5] Per contra, Mr. Sonak, learned A. P.P., and Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. 6] Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused records, I find that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. The informant Smt. Sugandha Sakharkar, who filed First Information Report, claims that Sanjay Khupase sold the property to her in excess of his share although there was partition in the year 1978 in which only certain share was allotted to Sanjay Khupase. Careful perusal of the entire records disclose that no role is attributed to either of the applicants in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 or 464 of the Indian Penal Code. In my considered opinion, the material on record does not justify the prosecution of the applicants for the offices punishable under Sections 420 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no material even, prima facie, on record to suggest common intention on the part of the applicants in the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 or 464 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.2.2006 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4 7] For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order insofar as the applicants are concerned is quashed and set aside and the applicants are discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8] The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Ambulkar