[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Madhav Sangram Rajkundle Alias ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7059
REVN-163-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2025
Madhav S/o Sangram Rajkundle (Rajkundal),
Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Tahsil Office, Dharmabad
Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded
at present Naigon (Kh.)
Tq. Naigaon (Bz.) Dist. Nanded ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
***
• Mr. N. G. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. B. V. Virdhe, APP for the Respondent/State
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 18, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionist takes exception to judgment and order dated
05.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in
Criminal Appeal No. 51/2018 upholding conviction for offence under
Sections 465 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') arising out
of judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by learned JMFC,
Dharmabad in RCC No. 13/2009.
2. Learned Counsel for Revisionist would point out that,
prosecution was launched against present Revisionist for offence under
Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC on the report
PAGE 1 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
of Nayab Tahsildar Dharmabad alleging that, accused no. 1, who was
working as Talathi at Mauza Chincholi, by interpolation and
overwriting converted agricultural land in Gut No. 106 to class-1 where
in fact it fell in class-2. That, accused no.2 had helped in conversion and
he got sale deed executed on the strength of said 7/12 extract and,
therefore, on above accusations, above crime was registered and after
investigation, Dharmabad police chargesheeted Revisionist and original
Accused No. 2 and they were made to face trial. That, in fact, there was
no evidence regarding commission of above offence and essential
ingredients for attracting charges are patently missing from prosecution
evidence but still initially learned Trial Court i.e. learned Court of
JMFC convicted the accused and learned First Appellate Court
confirmed the order of learned JMFC maintaining conviction for
offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.
3. He pointed out that, complainant himself in cross has
admitted that, he did not know who committed the interpolation and
overwriting and, therefore, complainant's evidence was not useful for
the prosecution. He further submitted that, evidence of very PW 6, was
hearsay. That, in fact, the document on which there was overwriting
was in his possession. That, there was no evidence that, Revisionist
indulged in the act of converting land from one class to another. That,
PAGE 2 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
moreover, when learned First Appellate Court recorded a finding that,
there is no handwriting's experts evidence, and entire prosecutions'
evidence ought to have been discarded. Further, according to him, so
called sale deed executed on the strength of alleged document being
registered, it carried presumptive value. That, the very document
regarding which there were allegations of borrowing loan, were not
placed before the Court and, therefore, entire story of prosecution had
collapsed and, hence, it is his submission that, case of prosecution ought
not to have accepted by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
4. Learned Counsel took this Court through the observations
of this Court while suspending sentence and conviction and would urge
that, in the light of the same, there is error committed by both Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court and so he urges to allow the Revision
by setting aside the impugned order.
5. Learned APP would support the findings of Trial Court as
well as First Appellate Court and prays to dismiss the Revision for want
of merits.
6. This being revision, re-appreciation of the evidence is to be
avoided. It is only to be tested whether impugned order is illegal,
irregular or perverse. The object of revision has been lucidly and
PAGE 3 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
succinctly dealt in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and
Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 407. The relevant paragraph is
borrowed and quoted hereunder:
Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and
regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the
court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of
them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to
be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly
erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of
law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence,
material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case
would have to be determined on its own merits.
Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuild restrictions is that it should not be against an
interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced staged in the proceedings
under the CrPC.
PAGE 4 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
Revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is
in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in
such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be
exercised on a question of law. However, when factual
appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the
class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically,
the power is required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely
on apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a
sufficient ground for interference on such cases.
The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though Section 397
CrPC does not specifically use the expression "prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by a court is the very
foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
CrPC but ultimately it also requires justice to be done.
The jurisdiction could be exercise where there is
palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the
juridical discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
7. Perused the papers and record.
8. Before learned JMFC, Dharmabad trial seems to be
conducted against present Revisionist and another accused, who was
arraigned as accused no. 2 for commission of offence under Sections 420,
465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Sum and substance of the
PAGE 5 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
accusations is that, accused no.1, while acting as Talathi, converted
land from class 2 to class 1 and carried out necessary changes in 7/12
extract and on the basis of same, a sale deed was got executed.
Therefore, on said accusations, trial was conducted. Before Trial Court
as many as eight witnesses are examined i.e. PW 1, 3, 4, 7 are Panch
witnesses; PW 2 is Informant a Nayab Talshidar, PW 5 - Victim, PW 6 -
witness and PW 8 is the I.O. After appreciating oral and documentary
evidence, learned JMFC accepted the case of prosecution and convicted
the accused for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
9. Challenge to the above judgment seems to be taken by
present Revisionist by filing Criminal Appeal bearing no. 51/2018 in the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who was pleased to uphold
conviction but only for offence under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC and
acquitted the accused for rest of the charges.
There is challenge to above order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge before this Court.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC is
concerned, it deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. It provides that,
whoever commits forgery intending that the document or electronic
record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
PAGE 6 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
punished with imprisonment of either description of a terms which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
11. Similarly, for attracting chare of Section 471, it is incumbent
upon prosecution to prove the document or electronic record is forged
one, wherein such forgery is done dishonestly or fraudulently to gain
pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit. The accused made use of the forged
document or electronic record as a genuine one. The accused knew or
had a reason to believe that such document or electronic record is a
forged one. The accused made use of the said document or electronic
record in spite of knowing it to be a forged one.
12. Sum and substance of the above witnesses.
For handy reference, are reproduced as under.
PW 1 Panch to spot panchnama, which is office of Nayab
Tahsildar and he identified panchnama Exhibit 86.
PW 2 is the informant/complainant and he, in his evidence,
at Exhibit 87 deposed that, since 1986 to 2009 he was officiating at
Tahsil office Dharmabad as Nayab Tahsildar. That, in 2008 accused was
posted as Talathi, Chincholi. That, on 17.03.2008, he received letter
from Tahsil office Dharmabad to register crime against accused for
offence under Section 420 of IPC i.e. vide communication dated
PAGE 7 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
26.03.2008. He identified said communication at Exhibit 88. According
to him, accused no.1 had done interpolation and overwriting in 7/12
extract of land Gut No. 106. Land was converted from class 2 category
to class 1, which is not permissible as land being tenancy land.
Therefore, he lodged complaint/report, which is identified to be at
Exhibit 89 and copy of 7/12 extract at Exhibit 90.
While under cross, he is unable to state the tenure of
accused no. 1 at Chincholi. He is unable to state who was Talathi prior
to appointment of accused at Chincholi. He answered that, he received
Exhibit 88 i..e communication from Tahsildar on 27.03.2008 and
according to him, after receipt of said letter, he had perused original
7/12 extract and mutation entry. He answered that, he had not made
inquiries with original owner of land Gut No. 106 i.e. Jamilabee. He
admitted that, mutation was carried out at the instance of Nayab
Tahsildar but he is unable to state who was Nayab Tahsildar at that
time. He answered that, prior to mutation as per procedure, notices
were required to be issued but he in unable to state whether prior to
incorporation of mutation entry vide Exhibit 92 whether such notices
were issued or not. In paragraph 5 of the cross, he answered that, he
came to know about overwriting in Exhibit 90 but he is unable to state
exactly who carried out overwriting and he admitted lodgment of FIR
PAGE 8 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
after one month of receipt of communication from Tahsil office.
In further cross at the hands of accused no.2, he admitted
that, he had no occasioned to go through original documents of land gut
no. 106 and who was its original tenant or when it was declared as
tenancy land. He is also unable to state who was the original owner
prior to tenancy. He also admitted that, said documents were not visited
prior to lodging FIR.
PW 3 is the panch to obtaining specimen/natural
handwriting and signature of accused, which are at Exhibits 96 to 99.
Nothing adverse has been brought in his cross.
PW 4 is the also is the panch to panchnama at Talathi office
Exhibit 86.
Nothing has also not brought in his cross.
PW 5 is the original owner of land gut No. 106 and in her
evidence, at Exhibit 101 she stated that, accused nos. 1 and 2 had
obtained her thumb impression on paper pertaining to loan and she
claims to have learned from others that, by cheating her accused had
obtained her thumb impression for conversion of land from class 2 to
class 1.
PW 6, testified at Exhibit 102, deposed that, he runs
PAGE 9 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
information and service center in the office of Tahsildar, Dharmabad. He
gave names of two office employees and further deposed that, on receipt
of handwritten 7/12 extract prepared by Talathi, he used to issue
computerized 7/12 extract to the farmers. According to him, on
18.12.2006 accused no.1 had visited his center along with 7/12 extract of
Gut no. 106 and had taken away computerized copy. According to him,
overwriting was done over 7/12 extract, counter initials were made
thereupon and stamp was affixed and he was asked to convert the land
from Class 2 to Class 1. He further deposed that, subsequently police
came to him and questioned him, how class was converted from 2 to 1
and he allegedly told police about it being handed over by accused and
he even identified it and consequently it was marked at Exhibit 103. He
identified signatures of accused over the same.
In his cross, he denied all suggestions.
PW 7 is panch to seizure of papers of land gut no. 106 from
the possession of accused no. 1 vide panchnama Exhibit 91. He deposed
that, specimen signature of accused was also obtained.
In cross he is unable to state whether accused was in
custody of police. He is unable to state whether while drawing
panchnama Exhibit 105 whether signature of accused no. 1 was taken
on 7/12 extract or not and he caused signature over the panchnama at
PAGE 10 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
the instance of complainant.
PW 8 is the investigating officer.
While under cross he answered that he did not see the
revenue record like Khasra Patra, Pahani Patra, 8A or original tenancy
register. He is unable to state who was the original owner of the land.
He admitted that, original owner Jamilabee had not lodged any
complaint with police.
13. Here, on going through the record, admittedly, learned Trial
Court, who conducted trial, has convicted accused for offence under
Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
14. Further, learned First Appellate Court acquitted the
accused for offence under Section 420 & 468 of IPC but maintained
conviction for offence under Sections 465 and 471 read with Section 34
of the IPC.
15. The only charges, which remain after the impugned order of
First Appellate Court, are Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, which deals
with forgery and further knowing that said document is forged, the
same to be put to use to cause wrongful gain to accused no.2.
16. As stated, learned First Appellate Court set aside the order
PAGE 11 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
of conviction for Section 420 IPC holding that, there was no cheating to
PW 5. Further, learned First Appellate Court held that, as handwriting
expert was not examined, Exhibit 138 to be not admissible. Therefore,
the aspect of very forgery has come under shadow of doubt, in spite of
taking pains to collect the handwriting specimen and signature
specimen of accused over seized documents.
17. From the substantive evidence of PW 2, who has set law
into motion, more particularly, his cross clearly shows that, he allegedly
succeeded accused as Talathi but he admitted that, he does not know
who exactly carried out overwriting and interpolation. He has not
personally seen the act of overwriting in the 7/12 extract register. He
has apparently set law into motion on receiving communication from
Tahsildar. He also has admitted that, he did not see the original record
pertaining to Gut No. 106. Though he answered that, original 7/12
extract and mutation entry extract was seen by him after receipt of
communication by Tahsildar, as stated above, in paragraph 5 of his
cross, he candidly admitted that, he is unaware about who exactly
carried out overwriting.
Therefore, here, firstly, there is no evidence of handwriting
expert affirming overwriting to be done by accused only, endorsing
signature over questioned document 7/12 extract. This witness has
PAGE 12 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
admitted that, in spite of receipt of communication from Tahsildar, there
was delay in lodging FIR and as such, delay itself has not been
explained.
18. Now, next crucial witness here is PW 6, from whom
investigating machinery has claimed to have got it confirmed that, there
was handwritten 7/12 extract by accused and he after overwriting and
changing the class tendered it for computerized copy. This witness
examined at Exhibit 102 and his testimony is already reproduced above.
According to him, on 18.12.2006 accused had come to him handed him
handwritten 7/12 extract of Gut No. 106 and according to him, accused
asked him to convert the class and he accordingly made necessary
changes in the computer. It seems that, it is this witness who has
handed over handwritten 7/12 extract to police. Therefore, custody of
handwritten 7/12 extract, over which there was said to be overwriting
and is under question is apparently seized from this witness. He cannot
and he is not a witness to identification of signature of accused. Learned
First Appellate Court has already discarded handwriting expert's report
for non examination of handwriting expert and, therefore, when custody
of alleged handwritten changed 7/12 extract is from PW 6, it is doubtful
as to how the said act can be attributed to accused.
19. As regards to accused no.2 is concerned, there are
PAGE 13 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
allegations that, he assisted accused no.1, but here accused no.2 has not
questioned the order of either learned JMFC or the learned First
Appellate Court.
20. For attracting charge of Section 468 IPC, prosecution has to
establish creation of false document within the meaning of 464 IPC and
that too further intention of cheating. Section 471 IPC requires proof
that accused used forged document as genuine knowing or reasons to
believe it to be forged at the time of its use. Therefore, the act of
utilizing document is attributed to accused no.2 but there is no evidence
in that regard in any of the witnesses. The very crucial aspect of chain
of custody of the impounded 7/12 extract is rendered doubtful as it is
shown to be taken in custody by police from PW 6 and not accused.
Unless there is proof to show that accused authored or tampered the
7/12 extract, charges of forgery cannot be brought home. What this
witness has merely stated this witness is, he has seen the accused
encircling the entry and converting it from class 2 to class 1. Except
such visual inference, there is no evidence to show that, PW 6 was
acquainted with the signature or handwriting of accused. Here
document is shown to be passing through several hands i.e. from
accused to PW 6 and from PW 6 to police. Mere encircling of a document
without there being sufficient proof of it to be solely done by accused
PAGE 14 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
no.1 and none other, case of prosecution cannot be accepted. Therefore,
here, for above reasons, it cannot be said to be proved that prosecution
has discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt. A person charged
for 468 can only be convicted if he has committed forgery with the sole
purpose of cheating. PW 5 owner of the land has not being cheated and
she admitted to that extent. As long as use of alleged document, there is
no distinct evidence.
21. To sum up, here informant himself has admitted in cross
that, before lodging FIR he had no occasioned to go through the original
file. He candidly admitted that, he does not know who actually
committed overwriting. As stated above, 7/12 extract which is alleged to
be manufactured after overwriting and changing class, is seized from
PW 6 who ran the center. Therefore, all such aspects casts doubt over
the very prosecution story.
22. Resultantly, in the light of above discussion, in the
considered opinion of this Court, both learned Trial Court as learned
First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in
its correct perspective and having erred, interference is called for.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(a) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
PAGE 15 OF 16
REVN-163-2025.odt
(b) Both judgment and order dated 05.05.2025 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Criminal
Appeal No. 51/2018 upholding conviction for offence
under Sections 465 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and
judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by learned
JMFC, Dharmabad in RCC No. 13/2009 are quashed and
set aside to the extent of present Revisionist. Revisionist
is hereby acquitted from all the charges levelled against
him vide RCC No. 13/2009.
(c) The personal bonds and surety bonds, if any, executed by
the Revisionist shall stand cancelled, and the sureties
are discharged.
(d) Fine amount, if any, paid by Revisionist shall be
refunded to him.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 16 OF 16
