1 APPLN 858/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 858 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Dr. Machindra Yeshwant Patil .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharahstra & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 1st December, 2010 P.C:- 1. Heard the leaned Counsel for the applicant. 2. Applicant is the original complainant. He has challenged the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi, District Sangli dated 07/11/2006. By the said order, the learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to acquit the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts are that a complaint was filed and in the complaint it was alleged that the accused had affixed bogus/fake signatures/thumb impressions of the members of the Educational Institution and had, on the basis of those 2 APPLN 858/07 forged documents, assumed control of the Institution. In the trial court, complainant examined four witnesses. After the evidence was perused by the Trial Court, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant had not established that the respondent – accused had committed the said offence of forgery as alleged in the complaint. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has taken me through the judgment and order of the Trial Court. He submitted that the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the case is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. 5. It is a settled position in law that while exercising jurisdiction under section 378 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot substitute its own reasons to the reasons given by the Trial Court unless it is shown that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is perverse or is not borne out by the evidence on record. Perusal of the judgment and order of the Trial Court clearly indicates that cogent reasons have been given by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused. The Trial Court in its judgment in para 18 has observed that the complainant failed to prove the ingredients of section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and they have not proved that the signatures on the forged documents were made by the accused or were made by another person at their instance. He has also observed that witnesses had stated that they suspected that the accused had forged the documents. Moreover, the 3 APPLN 858/07 complainant also did not examine any handwriting expert to establish firstly that their signatures were forged and secondly that the signatures were that of the accused or any other person at their behest. 6. Hence, no case is made out for granting leave to file appeal. Application for leave to file appeal is refused. V.M. KANADE, J.