1 Cri.A.5094.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5094 OF 2010 Radheshyam S/o Jaggannath Jaiswal ...APPLICANT VERSUS Koyalabai W/o Jaggannath Jaiswal and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.V.P.Raje,Advocate holding for Mr.C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.S.Koshti,Advocate holding for Smt.S.S.Jadhav,Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: U.D.SALVI, J. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER,2011 PER COURT : . Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal of the contesting respondents of the offences punishable under sections 420 and 468 read with section 34 of 2 Cri.A.5094.10 the Indian Penal Code, passed by 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, on 06.10.2010. 3. The applicant-original complainant lodged private complaint being Regular Criminal Case No.61 of 2001, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhule against one Koyalbai Jaiswal, the contesting respondents/accused and Dinesh Vibhandik under sections 193, 196, 199, 420, 466, 468, 474 and 68 of Indian Penal Code. Koyalbai Jaiswal expired during pendency of the criminal case and Dinesh Vibhandik was discharged, and the case proceeded further against the contesting respondents-Sohanlal Jagannath Jaiswal and Sharad Narayan Jaiswal. 4. Charge for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. To bring home the guilt, the complainant examined himself and two officials from the offices of Land Record and City Survey. 3 Cri.A.5094.10 5. It was the case of the complainant that Sohanlal moved an application through the deceased accused Koyalbai to City Survey Office to bring on record that deceased Koyalbai was the only heir of the complainant's father Jaggannath succeeding to his house property being No.1257/B situated at Agra Road, Dhule and this was done with a view to grab the property and for that purpose respondent- accused Sharad Jaiswal and Dinesh Vbhandik gave their statements before City Survey Officer on 02.02.1999. . As regards role of the contesting respondents, P.W.1-Radheshyam Jaiswal, in his cross-examination deposed that contesting respondents Sohanlal and Sharad did not sign any document in his presence before CTS Officer nor gave any statement before CTS Officer in his presence. He also admitted that the application and affidavit made for changes in the City Survey record were not signed by either Sohanlal Jaiswal or Sharad Jaiswal, contesting respondents. He further admitted that names of 4 Cri.A.5094.10 contesting respondents were not shown in the City Survey extract as legal heirs of Jagannath succeeding to his property. Relevant record was placed before the learned trial Court by official witnesses from the offices of Land Record and City Survey. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicant could not point out in the evidence of witnesses any thing incriminating in respect of role of the contesting respondents in the commission of offences under sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court made material observations in para Nos. 13 of the impugned judgment and order No interference is, therefore, warranted in the impugned judgment and order. Leave is, therefore, refused. Application stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- [ U.D.SALVI J.] MTK 5 Cri.A.5094.10