1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.428 of 2006 (Sumanbai Rama Sonpasare Vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. R.M.Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:24/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard both the Counsel extensively. 2. The acquittal for an offense under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Partur, dt.28.9.2006, is subject of challenge by the original complainant Sumanbai. The State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. 3. The complainant Sumanbai indicated that she did not execute any sale deeds being sale deed nos. 3406/1997 and 3407/1997, 2 respectively. Her thumb impressions are not appearing on the original sale deeds. There was a case of impersonation, according to her, somebody else was impersonated as Sumanbai before the Sub Registrar. 4. During the course of trial, the accused indicated that original sale deeds which they possessed were handed over by them to the investigator for which affidavit is filed by the accused at Exhs. 25 and 26, as referred in para 15 by the learned Judge. The Counsel informs, the investigating officer denied having received the original. According to him, original was not produced though he demanded to the accused. 5. The evidence of PW No.3 Suman indeed could have been tested with the evidence of Sub Registrar's office produced with the register by PW No.1 Sahebrao which showed that there was a thumb impression of Sumanbai, in the register. The learned Judge 3 observed in paragraph no.28 that it was expected of the learned A.P.P. to have moved application for sending the two documents for examination of the genuineness of the thumb impression since PW No.3 Sumanbai was available for specimen thumb impression. 6. The scope under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is quite limited. I do not see that there is any element of miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality in the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. It was an edge created by learned A.P.P. which he should have timely cured. The glaring defect was at the behest of the A.P.P. but it was not a defect of procedure. Consequently, the scope in the revision being limited, the interference, as sought, is not warranted. It is open for the complainant to apply through learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and get the matter through the Government for - 4 preferring an appeal. Revision dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/428-06crra ...