1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 1055 of 2010 (Sunil Digambar Gosavi V. Murlidhar Raghav Patil) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mrs. Sushma S. Savale, Advocate for the applicant PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is seeking special leave to file the Appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa, in Criminal Case No. 57 of 2005, acquitting the respondent / accused of the offences punishable under Sections 464, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant / complainant alleged that the respondent / accused forged Will of one Anjanabai and tried to claim that Anjanabai bequeathed all her immovable properties to him through the Will. The 2 applicant / complainant suspected the genuineness of the Will, and, since in absence of such Will, he would get the property of the deceased, he lodged the complaint. The peculiar feature of this case is that deceased Anjanabai, before her death, was suffering from leprosy, and due to leprosy, her fingers and toes had almost vanished. In her earlier Will, which was made in favour of the complainant, there is clearcut mention that Anjanabai was unable to put her thumb mark on the Will, because of absence of thumb. The applicant / complainant placed reliance on the previous Will. On the other hand, the so called forged Will depicts thumb mark of the testator, Anjanabai. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that, the fact that the questioned Will showed thumb mark would invariably lead to conclusion that the Will was forged, because testator – Anjanabai was unable to put her thumb mark on any document. On careful perusal of the questioned document, I found that there are as many as five marks at the place where the testator was supposed to put her signature or her thumb mark. It seems, the Will bears the 3 marks of the remnants of her fingers and certainly they were not the finger prints as a person would generally make thumb impression. However, absence of thumb mark on the Will in question would not make it as forged one. The Court below rightly held that the complainant had failed to establish that the Will in question was forged in order to convict the respondent / accused for the above mentioned provisions of the Indian Penal Code. I find no error in the Judgment of the Court below, and, the application should therefore fail. 3. Application stands rejected. DT: 05.04.2010 [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] srm/criapln/1055/10