1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1883 OF 2009. WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.286 OF 2009. Deepak S/o Wamanrao Balsetwar ... Applicant. Versus Raman S/o Bhagwandas Patel and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.G.Kale, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh Pardeshi, advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.07.2009. PER COURT 1. The delay condonation application and the Criminal appeal No.286/2009 are being disposed of together. 2 2. The Criminal appeal is allowed to be converted as Writ Petition inasmuch as there is no specific order to decline taking of cognizance for the alleged offence of perjury/forgery. There is delay of 57 days in filing of the Criminal Appeal/petition. The petitioner states that due to illness of grand mother, he was required to go to native village, namely Kostgaon in the month of March 2009. She died on 15.4.2009, while was under medical treatment. He attended her. Afterwards he learnt that due to Summer Vacation, the High Court will be closed and, therefore, the appeal/petition could not be filed within limitation. Considering the cause shown by the applicant, I am of the opinion that the delay is accidental and properly explained. No reply is filed. The learned advocate for the Respondents, however, opposed the application. The explanation is acceptable and as such the delay is condoned. 3. So far as petition is concerned, it may be mentioned at the outset that the learned advocate for the petitioner states that the 3 refusal of the Civil Court to consider application (Exh.461) is not being challenged. That application was filed during pendency of the Civil Suit (Spl.C.S.No.24/2002) to take cognizance of the false statement made by the Respondent in respect of the absence of the lawyer due to inability to attend the suit proceedings for the reasons stated in the application which were false one. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, however, that the application filed at Exh.522 ought to have been considered and appropriate order should have been passed thereon. 4. The petitioner is original plaintiff who filed suit (Spl.C.S.No.24/2002) in which the Respondents filed certain documents at Exh.516. According to the petitioner, the entries in the statement of account were fabricated by interpolation of entries dated 15.5.2001 and 16.5.2001 which were in the ink and were not counter signed. He asserted that false statement was made by the defendants/respondents in their written statement and affidavit and secondly the 4 statement of accounts of Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., was falsely prepared by interpolation of the two entries. 5. The application (Exh.522) filed in the suit remained unattended until the suit was disposed of. After disposal of the suit, the learned Civil Judge passed an order to the effect that the allegations in the said application were not duly proved by the plaintiff/petitioner. He, therefore, rejected the application vide the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the material placed on record, it is manifest that the learned Civil Judge did not direct separate inquiry into the allegations. He made observations about credibility of the document i.e. the statement of the accounts while delivering the judgment and particularly in paragraph No.22. He observed that the entry of said amount with Venkatesh Traders in the document (Exh.516) was inserted by handwriting on computerised statement. It is 5 well settled that where forgery of a document is committed during pendency of any proceedings before the Court then the same Court is competent to take cognizance thereof in view of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Obviously, the Civil Court should have directed registration of the application (Exh.522) as Misc.Judicial Proceedings for the purpose of inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on "Kenneth Desa S/o Late John Desa and another Vs. Gopal S/o Leeladhar Narang" 2007 (3) B.Cr.C 794, in support of his contention that such separate case should have been registered. Considering the provisions of Chapter 19 of the Civil Manual (para 337), this Court held that in such a case the application is required to be registered as Misc.Judicial Case and inquiry needs to be separately conducted. 7. Considering the foregoing discussion and the legal position noticed as above, rejection of the application of the petitioner is quite improper and illegal. The proper course was to direct registration of the said application as 6 Misc. Judicial Case for the purpose of inquiry and necessary inquiry should have been conducted. It can not be over-emphasised that perjury or forgery during course of the proceedings before the Court ought to be deprecated and dealt with heavy hand. Otherwise, the manipulators and forgers are likely to exploit the situation and may go scot free. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The Civil Court is directed to register the application separately as Misc. Judicial Case (proceedings) for separate inquiry into the matter of alleged interpolations/forgery and necessary inquiry be conducted for the purpose of taking cognizance and further action if so required. The Civil Court, however, shall not be influenced by any observations made by the Court. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp201209