- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.3892 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra Colaba Police Station ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Rajmani Phoolchand Yadav r/o Sarju Yadav Chawl, Near Shashikant Hotel, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 ..Respondent [Ori.Accused] ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for Applicant Mr.S.P.Kadam Adv. for Respondent ... CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, AND CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, AND CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JULY 10, 2007 DATE : JULY 10, 2007 DATE : JULY 10, 2007 P.C. [PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: P.C. [PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: P.C. [PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: 1. Heard Mr.Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP for the Applicant-State and Mr.Kadam, the learned advocate for the Respondent-accused. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.5.2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan, - 2 - 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in Cri.Case No.33/P/2000, this application for leave to appeal has been preferred. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent of the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Respondent has produced forged documents in a suit wherein his father Phoolchand Yadav was shown as Plaintiff whereas actually, the father of the Respondent had expired. The said civil suit was filed against Bombay Municipal Corporation in respect of reconstruction of a garage or compensation. 4. In a case of forgery, report of the handwriting expert plays a very vital role. No original record was produced before the police for getting the opinion of handwriting expert. What was sent to the handwriting expert, were certified xerox copies of the documents which were with the police. In respect of the said documents, in the report of the handwriting expert which is at Exhibit-P-16, the handwriting expert has opined that due to absence - 3 - of adequate common identifying characteristics, it was not possible to give any definite opinion in respect of the questioned document and the other documents. The handwriting expert has clearly opined that no definite opinion was possible. In view of the evidence on record and especially the report of the handwriting expert, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the Respondent. Looking to the evidence on record and the opinion of the handwriting expert, in our considered opinion, the view taken by the learned Magistrate acquitting the Respondent is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, we are referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has - 4 - observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 6. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]