Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Yashwant Rama Mhaske And Others on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32623
-1- ALS-59-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.59 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Shrirampur Police Station,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Yashwant Rama Mhaske,
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Retired,
2. Pramila Yashwant Mhaske,
Age : 57 years, Occu. : Service,
3. Sushant Yashwant Mhaske,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Service, ... Abated as against
All R/o. Sanjaynagar, Shrirampur, respondent no.3
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.
... Respondents.
(Orig. Accused)
......
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Appellant - State.
Mrs. M. G. Kasturkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 26 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27 NOVEMBER 2025
ORDER :
1. As State is keen in questioning the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2012, thereby acquitting present respondents
from charge under sections 420, 406, 198 and 465 r/w section 34 of IPC,
-2- ALS-59-2018
instant leave application to file appeal has been pressed into service.
2. In brief, prosecution was launched against respondents on
the report lodged by one Chintaman Bhujangrao Kulkarni in the capacity
of Founder Secretary of Sanjay Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit,
alleging that present respondents accused had prepared false consent
letter dated 05.07.2007 showing him to be authorized to execute
mortgage deed of the house in the said society and had thereby raised
loan to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of his wife by making his
son and wife surety towards the said loan. On the strength of above
complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., crime seems to have been
registered and investigated for commission of above offence and after
charge-sheeting the accused, they were duly tried before learned
J.M.F.C., Court No.4, Shrirampur, who appreciated the evidence and held
charges proved vide judgment and order dated 16.07.2012.
Above order of conviction was taken exception to by filing
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2012 before Sessions Judge and learned
Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the appeal vide judgment
and order dated 15.03.2017 and against this judgment and order, State is
desirous of filing appeal. Hence, the leave application.
-3- ALS-59-2018
3. Learned APP pointed out that, accused had posed himself to
be a Secretary and had manufactured documents authorizing himself to
execute mortgage deed on behalf of society and he further raised loan
from bank by making such forged documents. That, he also executed sale
deed in favour of his wife without consent of society and thereby had
played fraud on the cooperative housing society.
4. Learned APP further pointed out that, in support of its case
prosecution had adduced evidence of PW1 complainant apart evidence of
PW2 and Investigating Officer. That, documentary evidence like certified
copies of 7/12 extract, resolution of co-operative society, copy of
mortgage deed, sale deed were also placed on record and therefore,
considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is his submission that
learned trial court had rightly held the charges proved and had thereby
convicted accused. However, according to him, first appellate court over
turned the sound findings and conclusion by merely stating that
prosecution failed to bring home the charges and that necessary
ingredients for attracting the charges are missing.
5. Learned APP took this court through the observations of
learned trial court, in paragraph nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22 and 25
and would submit the said findings are in consonance with the evidence
-4- ALS-59-2018
and therefore, the order of conviction is just, legal and proper. Lastly, he
submitted that, on the contrary, no sound reasons are assigned by the
first appellate court by setting aside the order of trial court. There is good
case on merits and hence, he urges for leave.
6. Supporting the judgment and order of first appellate court,
learned counsel for respondents accused would submit that none of the
necessary essential ingredients for attracting the charges were available
in the prosecution evidence and she would point out that there was no
corroboration in the testimony of complainant and rather answers given
by him in his own cross has rendered case of prosecution doubtful.
7. Heard. Perused the record, which shows that, one
Chintaman Bhujangrao Kulkarni claiming himself to be Founder
Secretary of Sanjay Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit approached
learned JMFC for invoking powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the complaint
was referred to police station for investigation by virtue of registration of
crime bearing no. 16 of 2007 for offence punishable under sections 420,
406, 205, 198, 196, 192, 465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Substance of the accusation is that, accused no.1, who was
never a member of co-operative housing society, had become a owner of
-5- ALS-59-2018
bungalow and he has encumbered the said property by tendering
fabricated documents posing himself to be 'B' Class member of the
society. He had on the strength of bogus documents, mortgaged the
property for raising loan to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- and subsequently
executed the sale deed in favour of wife itself. Hence, the complaint.
9. Evidence of complainant is at Exh.47. Another witness PW2
namely, Annasaheb Dhokchaule is at Exh.81 and PW3 is the Investigating
Officer. That apart, there are several documents.
10. Sum and substance of evidence of PW1 is that, he was
working as Secretary from 2002 to 2007. That, on 05.05.2007 Yashwant
Rama Mhaske had prepared consent letter without authority, had caused
signature over the said letter and had prepared false documents in the
name of his wife Pramila Yashwant and had borrowed loan to the tune of
Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of his society that too by executing mortgage
deed before Sub-Registrar and further accused preparing sale deed of the
property in the name of his wife and hence he filed complaint in the
court of law.
While under cross, he admitted that, to remove a person,
who is already a member of the society, resolution of the society is
-6- ALS-59-2018
required. In paragraph 6 of the cross, he has admitted that name of the
accused figures in the list of members of the Sanjay Gruh Nirman
Sanstha. He also admitted that, Bungalow no.16-b stands in the name of
accused and he had purchased the said bunglow by accused no.1 and he
also resides therein. He further answered that, Sanjay Gruh Nirman
Sanstha is given on mortgage to Maharashtra Housing society. He is
unable to state whether at the time of complaint any charge was created
with regard to the bungalow over the 7/12 extract. He admitted that
there was no notice to him by either society or the bank. He also
expressed his ignorance regarding name of Mhaske recorded over
Bungalow no.16-b in the municipality record.
PW2 Annasaheb does not seem to have supported
prosecution as well as PW1 as he showed his ignorance about any loan
transaction, sale deed as well as mortgage deed being executed.
PW3 is the Investigating Officer, but he does not seem to
have carried out investigation about alleged fabrication of manufactured
documents and its authenticity does not seem to have been verified by
consulting any expert. Even bank does not seem to have questioned the
authenticity of the documents and had rather extended loan by
mortgaging the property.
-7- ALS-59-2018
Likewise, Investigating Officer has also admitted that he
failed to investigate as to who was the exact secretary in the month of
2005 when alleged events had taken place.
11. No doubt, learned trial court which was the court of first
instance, had recorded conviction of the accused, respondents herein, but
on going through said judgment, it transpires that, failure of accused to
take up particular defence or admission under section 313 of Cr.P.C. are
taken into account while accepting the case of prosecution. Such
approach was against the criminal jurisprudence. Even the papers which
were placed on record, were not proved to be fabricated or manufactured
that too by accused himself. Therefore, learned first appellate has rightly
interfered by according acquittal. Necessary ingredients for attracting the
charges were not available in the evidence of prosecution.
12. No case being made out on merits to accord leave, the same
is refused. The application is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
