1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8431 OF 2005 Shivraj Education Society ..Applicant V/s. Shrirang Bapusaheb Patil & ors ..Respondents Mr.Amit Sheth i/b.Mr.Amit Borkar, Advocate, for applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. Shivraj Education Society while providing education to the children developed acrimonious relations with members. The matter was taken before the Charity Commissioner, passed his Judgment dated 30th January, 1996. Its appeal being appeal No.95/2001 was moved before the Joint Charity Commissioner, taking re-course of Section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act,1950 that appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved persons moved an 2 application before the District Judge, Kolhapur vide M.A.No.280/1998. The complainant Keshavrao Gaikwad and other members were the respondents in the said application. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur framed a point whether the reporting trustees i.e.respondent No.1 has proved that the change report was made by passing Resolution dated 6th March, 1988 validly and legally and it was decided in the Negative. In view of the Judgment referred above appointment of complainant as Secretary is thus, came to be declared as illegal. 3. The point which was agitated was about preparing a false or incorrect rubber stamp for the educational society. P.W.3 has stated that they conduct preparing of rubber stamps and of receiving Rs.32.50/- towards the charges for preparing rubber stamp and such receipt is at Exh.70 but he is unable to say as to who has signed said Cash Memo. The learned Judge found it could be stated at the most the rubber stamp was prepared for the said trust/education society and only inference he drew 3 is that the complainant had made false receipt by putting back date on it. He also observed that it was the complainant who has prepared false and bogus rubber stamp to involve accused in the present case. The evidence adduced before the learned Judge was not satisfying requirement of Sections 465, 471 and 472 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Consequently, there was coherent and cogent evidence to hold the accused to be not guilty. A view taken by the learned Judge by his Order dated 30th January, 2004, cannot be said to be perverse and hence, leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)