1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.430 OF 2011 (NARAYAN BAJIRAO PARVATKAR//VS// NILKANTH WAKILA PARVATKAR & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.R.Prajapati h/f. Mr. S.D.Chopde, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Vivek G.Palshikar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2011. The applicant/appellant is original complainant in Criminal Case No.28 of 2006 which was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daryapur alleging that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) have committed an offence punishable under Sections 196, 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant is an agriculturist having his lands in village Mhaisapur Mochada, Tahsil : Daryapur, District : Amravati. Respondent No.1 possesses land adjoining to his land. There was a dispute over a way passing through their lands. Therefore, the appellant filed proceedings before Tahsildar, Mhaisapur which was registered as Revenue Case No. BAND-54/Mhaispur Mocharda/1/2003-04 (Narayan Vs. Nilkanth). A measurement map of the land of the appellant was produced as evidence in the said revenue case. It was the case of the complainant that the respondent No.2 in the capacity of Talathi deliberately prepared false map. He had shown 36 R land in possession of the appellant whereas he only possesses 18 R land. Regarding crop which was standing in the land, wrong facts were mentioned. It was, therefore, alleged that both the respondents committed 2 offence punishable under Sections 196 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of the complaint process was issued and particulars were framed against the respondents. The learned Magistrate by referring to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint is barred since the complaint was not filed by the Court or by such an officer of the Court before whom the false documents were tendered as an evidence. On merits also the learned Magistrate held that no case was made out by the appellant. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit both the respondents. This very judgment and order of acquittal is being assailed in this appeal and for that leave is being sought under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in Iqbal Singh Vs. Meenakshi, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 530. It has been held that : “Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” 5. Apart from acquitting the accused persons on account of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate dealt with the case of the appellant on merits and came to the conclusion that the ingredients of sections 195 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. The learned Magistrate considered the document Exhs. 63 and 72 and observed that they are signed by Tahsildar and as such the author of this document is none other than the Tahsildar. The learned Magistrate further 3 clarified that the presence of respondent No.2 at the time of inspection of the spot could not change the nature of the documents Exh.63 and 72. The findings of the learned Magistrate in paragraph 20 clinches the issue and hence, are reproduced below : “20. I am very surprised while perusing the evidence of C.W.6. In the examination in chief he deposed that Tahsildar conducted spot inspection at about 11.00 am. He further deposed that Exh.63 bears his signature which he put at the time of spot inspection. Not only this, non else than C.W. 2 Prakash clearly deposed in examination in chief itself that the road passes from the field of accused Nilkanth and said road is east to west direction. During cross examination also he started that said road still passes through the field of accused no.1. When non else than complainant's witnesses are saying that the road passes through the field of accused no.1 then how it can be said that Tahsildar or Talathi prepared false document. As accused no.2 is not author of Exh.63 and Exh.72 it cannot be said that he in collusion with accused no.1 prepared false report and map. So also nothing is on the record that accused prepared false crop statements of gat no.19.” 6. This is an appeal against order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after considering the pros and cons of the material placed on record. Obviously, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate being neither perverse nor against the principles of law, no interference by this Court is justified. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Leave refused. JUDGE RR..