Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Santosh Arjun Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9120 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9120 Bom
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Santosh Arjun Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                 25. Cri. WP 2397-17.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2017
       Santosh Arjun Chavan                                      ...Petitioner
            vs.
       The State of Maharashtra                                  ...Respondent
                                  ...........

Mrs. Farhana Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. - State.

...........

                                 CORAM :                  SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI  & 
                                                          M.S.KARNIK, J.J.

                                 DATE        :      28th NOVEMBER, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

1/7/2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was rejected by order dated 28/10/2016. Being

aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal

was dismissed by order dated 18/2/2017. Hence, this petition.

25. Cri. WP 2397-17.doc

3. In order to substantiate the fact that the wife of the

petitioner is ill, the petitioner has relied on ten medical

certificates. The certificates are dated 27/5/2016, 27/5/2016,

20/7/2016, 18/9/2016, 18/9/2016, 19/10/2016, 30/12/2016,

27/2/2017, 30/3/2017 and 7/4/2017. The first two certificates

are dated 27/5/2016. They are purportedly signed by Dr. D.P.

More. The first certificate shows that it is signed by Dr. D.P.

More, who was attached as Medical officer to the Primary

Health Center at Bhandarkavathe in South Solapur, District

Solapur. The second certificate which is also dated 27/5/2016 is

also purported to be signed by Dr. D.P. More. However, this

certificate shows that it was issued by the Primary Health

Center, Itkur, Taluka Kalamb, District Osmanabad. Thereafter,

there is one certificate dated 20/7/2016 and two certificates

dated 18/9/2016, which are also purportedly issued by Dr. D.P.

More, attached to Primary Health Center, Itkur, Taluka Kalamb,

District Osmanabad. Thereafter, there are five certificates dated

19/10/2016, 30/12/2016, 27/2/2017, 30/3/2017 and

7/4/2017. All these certificates are of Primary Health Center,

25. Cri. WP 2397-17.doc

Itkur, Taluka Kalamb, District Osmanabad. These certificates are

purportedly signed by Dr. D.P. More.

4. The statement of Dr. D.P. More has been recorded on

22/11/2017 and he has stated that the signature on both the

certificates dated 27/5/2016 are not his. He has further stated

that on 27/5/2016, he was attached to Primary Health Center,

Bhandarkavathe in South Solapur, District Solapur and he has

not issued the said certificates. Except the certificates dated

27/2/2017, 30/3/2017 and 7/4/2017 as far as the year is

concerned there is overwriting. Dr. More stated that he has not

carried out any overwriting in any of these certificates. Dr. More

has stated that he was attached to Primary Health Center, Itkur,

Taluka Kalamb, District Osmanabad from 20/12/2016. Thus, it

is seen that Dr. More have not issued any certificate prior to

20/12/2016. As far as certificate dated 30/12/2016,

27/2/2017, 30/3/2017 and 7/4/2017 though they are

purportedly issued by the Primary Health Center, Itkur, Taluka

Kalamb, District Osmanabad, Dr. More states that there is no

25. Cri. WP 2397-17.doc

report of any such patient in the OPD Register at Itkur. The

statement of Dr. More and ten certificates are taken on record

and marked 'X' for identification. Thus, it is seen that the

petitioner has relied on false and fabricated certificates in order

to substantiate his claim that his wife is ill. The petitioner has

not come to the Court with clean hands. Such person does not

deserve any exercise of discretion in his favour. In view of the

above fact, no case is made out for interference.

5. Rule is discharged.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter