( 1 ) 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 REVISION APPLICATION No.421 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.421 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.421 of 2003. Subhash Rameshwar Agarwal ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr V. T. Tulpule i/b Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr J. P. Yagnik. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the petition. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16-10-2003, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (the lower Appellate Court) and thereby confirming the order ( 2 ) convicting the present applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) by an order dated 3.4.1999 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 107 of 1991 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Pune (the Trial Court). THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- 3. The factual matrix drawn by the lower Appellate Court can be briefly stated, as under; 4. The accused is the proprietor of "Anand Auto Service Station" Vishrantwadi. One vehicle was insured with the New India Insurance Company, Laxmi Road, Pune. That vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle was repaired by M/s Anand Auto Service Station. The New India Insurance Company issued a cheque for the amount of Rs. 4,162/- in favour of "Anand Auto Service Station". The accused deposited the said cheque in his account maintained by the Bank of Maharashtra. However, it was noticed that instead of Rs. 4,162/- amount of Rs. 14,162/- was credited in the acount of accused. ( 3 ) Consequently, amount of Rs. 14,162/- was debited in the account of New India Insurance Company. When this fact was noticed by the Insurance Company, enquiry was made with the bankers and it was then transpired that the amount mentioned in the cheque was forged and fabricated by the accused and instead of Rs. 4,162/-, he had shown the amount in the cheque as Rs. 14,162/-. It is alleged that the accused had inserted figure "1" before figure "4,162/-" and he had also inserted words "Teen" after the word "Four". The counter foil of cheque was also submitted by the officers of New India Insurance Company. It was then revealed that accused had forged the amount of cheque. The Branch Manager of New India Insurance Company, namely S.D. Nagarkar, lodged complaint to the police. On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered and the investigation was carried out. 5. During the course of investigation, the extract of the firm "Anand Auto Service Station" maintained with the bank of Maharashtra was seized. The cheque in question Exh.51 was also attached. Accused came to be arrested. The ( 4 ) specimen handwriting of the accused was obtained in presence of panchas. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Pune. 6. The charge was framed against the accused by the learned Magistrate fore the above mentioned offence punishable under Sections 467, 468,471 and 420 of the I.P.C. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Learned Magistrate relying on the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the charge was duly established against the accused. He was, therefore, pleased to convict the accused for the above mentioned offences. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate convicting the present applicant, he, unsuccessfully, invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Sessions Court ( 5 ) through Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1999 and suffered an adverse order dated 16-10-2003. 9. The applicant, not being satisfied with the judgment and orders of the Court below, has involved the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order of conviction and confirmation thereof. SUBMISSIONS:- SUBMISSIONS:- SUBMISSIONS:- ----------- ----------- ----------- 10. Mr Tulpule, learned counsel appearing with Mr Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the applicant, urged that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that had the applicant intended to commit forgery or fabrication of any document, then the applicant would not have returned the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Insurance company. The applicant had no intention of cheating the Insurance Company. He further submits that the chances of the Insurance company committing error while issuing cheque cannot be ruled out, as such, the applicant was entitled for benefit of doubt. He further submits that the panch witnesses having turned hostile the opinion of ( 6 ) the handwriting expert did not have any evidentiary value, as such it could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. 11. Percontra, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State urged that the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below are concurrent and they are based on admissible evidence available on record. As such, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence once again and substitute its opinion. He further urged that the opinion of the handwriting expert (Exh.55) was, admitted by the counsel for the accused. As such the said document was properly relied upon by the Courts below. He further submits that a categorical finding was recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court that the accused received cheque of Rs. 4,162 from the witness (P.W.8) and that he was the only person holding possession of the cheque till it was deposited in the bank, as such the only possible inference is that it was the applicant-accused, who alone could forge the valuable security. He further submits that the applicant had a ( 7 ) knowledge that the car repairing bill was only for Rs. 4,162/-. As such, he was entitled to get reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 4,162/-. As such he was well aware of the fact that he was not entitled to have a cheque of Rs. 14,162/-. Had it been a mistake on the part of Insurance Company, the applicant would have returned the subject cheque to the Insurance company. The applicant is a business man. Alleged mistake could not have escaped his attention. He further submits that the subject cheque was deposited by the accused in his bank account under his handwriting as per the findings recorded by the Courts below and that the extract of statement of account, duly certified by his banker which is not in dispute, reveals that on the very next day amount of Rs. 12,000/- was withdrawn by the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the chain of circumstances available on record prove beyond doubt that the applicant himself has committed the offences for which he has been convicted. He, thus, submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed holding it to be without any substance. ( 8 ) CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: -------------- -------------- -------------- 12. Having heard both parties at length before dealing with the rival contentions, it would be profitable to first consider the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 13. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court while entertaining criminal revision is limited which is recognized by this Court and also by the Apex Court in number of decisions. Readily available decision is in the case of (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that the revisional Court should not interfere with the view of the Court below unless found to be unreasonable or perverse. If two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the higher Court should not disturb the findings of the Lower Court. The same principle is reiterated in the case of (Varghese Thomas Vs. (Varghese Thomas Vs. (Varghese Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 (4) S.C.C. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 (4) S.C.C. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 (4) S.C.C. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. 14. This Court not being a Court of Appeal ( 9 ) cannot reappreciate and substitute its own views in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but discretionary. The higher Court should interfere in revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by the Apex Court in various cases (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurucharandas State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurucharandas State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) S.C.C. 250: Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) S.C.C. 250: Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) S.C.C. 250: A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895 A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895 A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895). 15. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, if one turns to the evidence on record, it is proved beyond doubt that cheque (Exh.51) was deposited in the account by the accused and the amount of Rs. 14,162/- was credited to his account which is also clear from the extract of account placed on record duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, which can be read in evidence. The amount of Rs. 12,000/- was withdrawn by the applicant-accused on the very next day and used it for his benefit till an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was returned by pay order (Exh.31) to the Insurance Company. The opinion of examiner of document (Exh.55) was admitted by ( 10 ) the counsel for the accused. He cannot be allowed to dispute the same. 16. That the cheque Exh.51 is a forged document, since alterations in the amount written in words and figures is not only confirmed by the examiner of document but is also visible to a naked eye. Therefore, there is no gain saying that the document Exh.51 is not a forged document. 17. It is, no doubt, true that so far as the evidence about forgery of this document is concerned, there is no evidence as to who manipulated, inserted and changed the figures in Exh.51 and the document except the fact that the cheque was in possession of the applicant-accused from the date of its delivery by the Insurance company till it was deposited in the bank under the pay-in-slip filled in by the applicant-accused. The fact is on record that the applicant used it for obtaining money from the bank. He withdrew amount from his account and pocketed the same, may be for a short duration. It is, no doubt, true that there is no ( 11 ) evidence as to who forged the cheque (Exh.51) but from the circumstances indicated herein will lead to the only inference that it was the applicant-accused, who got the figures changed and forged the cheque. The said inference is well founded by both the Courts below on the basis of evidence available on record. 18. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and reached to the logical conclusion, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. The Trial Court, by lucid and a reasoned order, has analysed the evidence step by step and in a most logical manner reached to a logical conclusion finding the applicant-accused guilty of the offences alleged. It is not necessary for me to again rediscuss and reappreciate the evidence on record since no perversity or lacuna could be demonstrated or found in the appreciation of evidence done by the Trial Court. 19. The lower Appellate Court has also by applying its independent mind affirmed the facts found by the Trial Court and after deducing ( 12 ) logical inferences based on the concrete evidence available on the record, affirmed findings recorded by the Trial Court with which again no fault can be found. 20. The view taken by the Courts below is a reasonable, possible and sustainable view on the basis of material available on record. The applicant was the only beneficiary of the forgery committed. He returned excess amount only after the approaches were made to him by the insurance company and the bank, as is clear from the material available on record. Therefore, a subsequent return of the amount can hardly be of any consequence so far as the act of committing forgery is concerned. However, the said fact has been taken into account by the Courts below while awarding lesser punishment. 21. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to invoke revisional jurisdiction and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. 22. In the result, the revision petition is ( 13 ) dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. The applicant-accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.