1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2008 Smt. Asha Rajnandan Singh. ... Applicant. V/s. Mrs. Rathina Maravarman & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Marwadi for the Applicant. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for Respondents 1 to 7. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 10th FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. :- This Revision Application challenges the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 24th January 2008, allowing the Revision Application preferred by the Applicants/Original Accused partly. 2. The order is challenged by the Original Complainant before this Court to the extent that it sets aside the issuance of process against the Applicants before the Sessions Court save and except Applicant No.7. 3. Mr. Marwadi, learned Advocate in support of this Application contended that the Sessions Court committed an error in reversing the order of the Trial Court issuing process. At this prima-facie stage there is no question of returning a finding that the accused has no mens rea, that is something which must be decided at the conclusion of the trial. Further, 2 the Power of Attorney contains the name of the deceased and knowing fully well that she had expired that the Power of Attorney was signed by the accused. It authorizes one of the accused to file a Civil Suit, who asserts the right in the immovable property. Therefore, this is a case where the Sessions Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order issuing process. The deceased had expired and yet, the Power of Attorney was used by filing a Civil Suit in her name. In these circumstances, prima-facie case was made out. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ponda, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned order. He submits that this is not a case where the other accused had any intention even prima-facie to commit a forgery inasmuch as the death of the deceased Savita had been mentioned in the Suit and despite the Power of Attorney in favour of the Lawyer, it is clear from a perusal of the Power of Attorney itself that the same was signed by the grand daughter of the deceased. The grand daughter had put her signature against the deceased grand mother’s name. This is something to which others cannot be said to be a party. Therefore, going by settled principles, the Revisional Court has rightly interfered with the order of the Magistrate. 5. Having perused the Petition and the annexures thereto, including the complaint and the Power of Attorney, I am satisfied that the Revisional Court did not commit any error of jurisdiction nor can be said that its finding is perverse. From a 3 perusal of the materials at this prima-facie stage, the Revisional Court concluded that on a reading of the complaint itself and taking all allegations as true, the accused save and except the grand daughter, could not be said to be guilty of forgery and other offences alleged. According to the complainant herself, the case is that she is claiming ownership rights in the property whereas others have formed a Co- operative Society which asserts in the immovable property rights for the civil dispute that a Power of Attorney was executed and since the civil suit was filed impleading the complainant as a party, that was not enough prima-facie to conclude that there is intention to commit forgery and grab the property by deliberately procuring a Power of Attorney in the name of the deceased. 6. To my mind, the reasoning in paragraph 12 of the impugned order must be read with the preceding paragraphs and in the light of the allegations in the complaint so seen and read, the Revisional Court did not commit any error in partly allowing the Revision Application. There is no reason to interfere. The Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)