rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3589 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3589 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3589 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Taralaxmi Kantilal Shah .. Applicant Vs. Anil Haldankar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Soni i/b.M/s.Ram & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.N.G.Bane for Respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Advocate for the first Respondent has filed written arguments and the office has place the written arguments on record. The registry has accepted the written arguments though there is no specific order passed by this Court directing the Registry to accept the written arguments. The written arguments ought not to have been accepted by the office. The Registrar (Judicial-I) will issue necessary direction to the registry not to accept the ( 2 ) written arguments unless there is a specific order passed by this Court permitting the parties to file written arguments. 2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking special leave under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and order dated 25th November, 2004 by which the third accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the learned Judge convicted the second accused for the offences alleged against him. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/applicant is a widow of one Dr.Kantilal Shah who died in the year 1974. According to the case of the Applicant, the first accused was the first wife of Dr.Kantilal. According to her case as there was no issue born to the first wife, Dr.Kantilal married to the Applicant in the year 1952 with the consent of the first accused. The case of the Applicant is that the second accused joined hands with the first accused ( 3 ) with a view to snatch away the properties of the Applicant and her son. The case of the Applicant is that the first accused forged signature of the Applicant on the various papers and documents. 4. The specific case of the Applicant is that a deed of assignment relied upon by the accused no.2 in the caveat filed by him in the Civil Court was a fabricated documents as the signatures of the Applicant and his son Rajesh appearing on the said documents are forged. The allegation made by the Applicant is that the third accused who is a practicing advocate is that she did not know the said accused and she has not seen him. The allegation against the third Respondent is that he has attested the forged signatures on the said document. The specific case of the Applicant is that though the deed of assignment has been purportedly signed by the Applicant, she alongwith her son never appear before a Notary. The allegation made in the complaint is that the second accused visited her residence and threatened her. A complaint have been filed by her against the third accused as well as the Notary before ( 4 ) the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The first Accused died during the pendency of the trial. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant invited my attention to the reasons given by the learned trial Judge in paragraph No.12 of the impugned Judgement for acquitting the third accused. He invited my attention to the various statements made by the third accused in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He pointed out that when material evidence was put to the third accused, in the said statement the case made out by the third accused is that the same was false. He submitted that in the light of the said stand taken by the third accused there was no reason for the learned Judge to accept the so called explanation of the third accused that the third accused identified the parties on the deed of assignment as per the instructions of his senior. He, therefore, submitted that the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge by acquitting the third accused is perverse. 6. I have carefully considered the submission. I ( 5 ) have perused the statement of the third accused under section 313 of the said Code. It must be noted here that the Applicant has not alleged that third accused has played any actual role in the alleged acts of forgery. The third accused has been roped in on the basis of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the following circumstances :- (a) There is absolutely no evidence to connect that there was any meeting of minds between the third accused and other accused prior to attestation. (b) There is no evidence to show that the third accused came to be benefited in any manner by attesting the said document. (c) There is no mens-rea or purpose behind the third accused attesting the said documents. (d) There is no evidence to attribute the ( 6 ) knowledge to the third accused that the document was forged and fabricated and that he knowingly attested the same. 6. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspects, the learned Judge has referred to the explanation of the third accused in the statement under section 313 of the said Code that he identified the parties on instruction of his senior who has been specifically named in the statement. 7. In my view, the conclusions drawns by the learned Judge are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judge are certainly possible conclusions. 8. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application for leave is rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose of considering the prayer made by the Applicant for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal against acquittal and the said observations will not ( 7 ) bind the parties in any other pending proceedings between the Applicant and third accused who is a practicing Advocate. (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.)