1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2009 Abdul Rahiman Dadasaheb Shaikh & Ors. : Applicants (Orig.Accused) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.M.S.Mohite for the applicants. Mr.S.N.Gawade, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.P.G. Sarda for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicants have challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing to interfere with the process issued by the J.M.F.C. in respect of offences under sections 464 and 466 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant no.1 is the Secretary of Mohol Taluka Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and the applicant nos.2 and 3 are the Principal and Vice Principal of Nagnath Vidyalaya and Junior College, Mohol. The respondent no.2 filed a complaint that the applicants unauthorisedly erased entries of the attendance of his wife Sushila from 2 the muster-roll for the period from 1.4.2002 to 6.4.2002 and, accordingly, sought prosecution under sections 464 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned J.M.F.C. issued process. Against the issue of process, the applicants challenged the matter before the learned Sessions Judge who declined to interfere with the issue of process. 2. Mr.Mohite, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that he does not wish to make a grievance in respect of the process under section 464 of the Indian Penal Code at this stage. The learned counsel, however, submitted that there are serious objections even to the tenability of the charge under section 466. Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.-- Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any 3 proceedings therein, or to confess judgement, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).” 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the muster-roll in possession of the applicants in respect of which the offence is said to have been committed does not qualify for the description of any of the documents or record referred to in the section. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 does not dispute that the muster-roll is the one maintained by the Vidyalaya for keeping a record of the attendance of its employees. It is clear from section 466 that the offence punishable thereunder is an offence of forgery in respect of specific document or record mentioned therein, viz., a record or proceeding of a Court of justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept 4 by a public servant or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgement, or a power of attorney. The muster-roll in question being none of the above, the prosecution under section 466 is liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The trial may proceed in respect of the offences under other sections. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the trial is expedited. 4. Criminal Application stands disposed of. S.A. BOBDE, J.