1 Cri.Appln.No.1207/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2010 Pandurang s/o Khanderao Mane ... APPLICANT VERSUS Prabhakar s/o Bhairuba Choudhary ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri B.R. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for applicant Shri P.D. Raut, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 24th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused the application and record. 2. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2009, of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kallam in R.C.C. No.362/2001. 3. A private complaint under Sections 167, 199, 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed against Talathi Sajja, Itkur, respondent/ accused in the present case. Learned trial Court, after taking evidence before charge, 2 Cri.Appln.No.1207/2010 framed charges under Sections 167 and 199 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 at Exh. 23. The complainant had mentioned 13 witnesses in his complaint. However, he examined only 4 witnesses namely himself (P.W.1 Pandurang Khanderao Mane), P.W.2 Nagnath Narayanrao Dange, Circle Officer, Itkur, P.W.3 Parasram Maruti Jadhav, panch to the panchanama Exh. 28 and P.W.4 Ramchandra Narayanrao Nalawade, Awal Karkoon, Tahsil Office. 4. It was the allegation of the complainant that the accused as a Talathi of Sajja Itkur, framed a false panchanama Exh. 46 and had shown crop area falsely to the extent of 80 Ares instead of 200 Ares. Learned trial Court found the evidence inadequate for substantiating the charges and particularly observed at Para No.16 of the impugned judgment as under : “12. . . . . . . . . . . On perusal of the panchanamas Exh. 28 & 46, it is noticed that the accused had prepared panchanama Exh. 46 and has shown standing sugarcane crop which has remained standing for want of crushing in the area of 80 Ares. However, on the application made by the complainant, Tahsildar had ordered Circle Inspector to make panchanama again and accordingly, Circle Inspector had made panchanama Exh. 28, showing 5 acres of standing sugarcane crop. Perusal of the panchanamas Exh. 28 & 46 reveals that, there has been 7 months period 3 Cri.Appln.No.1207/2010 between the two panchanamas and the witness had admitted that the sugarcane becomes ready for cutting within 7 to 8 months. The complainant has admitted that there has been no entry made of the sugarcane on 7/12 extract and the accused had not issued any tax receipt showing payment of tax/ cess in respect of the sugarcane, and the complainant being Professor and member of Farmers’ Association, was knowing that if any payment was made towards tax, receipt is obtained. According to the complainant, the accused did not issue receipt despite payment of three years tax and he did not complain to anybody and, therefore, there is doubt whether the complainant ever paid tax in respect of the sugarcane. The complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding the year of plantation of the sugarcane nor did he lead any evidence regarding the quantum of sugarcane supplied to Ranjni Sugar Factory in the year 1997-98, 98-99. Due to lapse of 7 months period between the panchanamas Exh. 28 and 46, and for want of reference to (Galpaabhawi Ubha Aslela Oos”) i.e. standing sugarcane for want of crushing in Exh. 28, there is no evidence as to how old was the said sugarcane and what was the extent of its plantation. From the evidence, two inferences can be drawn in my opinion :-- Firstly there is 7 months gap between making of the panchanama Exh. 28 & 46 and the witnesses have admitted that the sugarcane crop matures for cutting within 7 to 8 months, Secondly, there is no explanation regarding how the sugarcane remained. Therefore, there are grounds to suspect that complainant has planted sugarcane in 5 acres in the year 1999-2000. In the two inferences, inference in favour of the accused has to be accepted and, therefore, it is doubtful whether the accused had deliberately prepared a false panchanama to cause damage to the complainant.” 5. Mr. B.R. Sontakke Patil, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, from the panchanama Exh. 28, 4 Cri.Appln.No.1207/2010 made following directions of Talathi on 24.2.2001, it can be inferred that the panchanama Exh. 46 made by the accused on 4.7.2000 was false. He pointed out from the evidence of P.W.1 Pandurang Mane that he did not admit age of maturity of sugarcane crop as 7 to 8 months. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 Pandurang Mane, as pointed out, is accepted, one cannot yield the matter of truth of case to the inferences more particularly for the reason that P.W. 2 Nagnath Dange, Circle Officer conceded to the fact that if sugarcane crop is harvested in April/ May, then after 7 to 8 months again sugarcane crop gets matured. 6. For evincing the fact of making of a false panchanama Exh. 46, any one of the panchas to the said panchanama who have also been named as witnesses in the complaint, ought to have been examined in support of the prosecution case. This has not been done. Acquittal of the accused, therefore, cannot be faulted. Leave is refused. Application stands rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri1207.10