Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejram Sirse vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
1 CRR-1789-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1789 of 2012
TEJRAM SIRSE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Pegwar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2012 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, District-Chhindwara (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal
No.135/2008 whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 466 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03
years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 471 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court
and Appellate Court had wrongly convicted the applicant for the offence
punishable under Sections 466 and 471 of IPC whereas in the report of the
handwriting expert A. C. Namdeo (PW-12), it has not been opined that the
document was prepared and signed by this applicant. He has further
submitted that the complaint was not made by private person regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
2 CRR-1789-2012
whose land the mutation order was passed. The Patwari Rajkumar Jaiswal
(PW-7), in his statement, has clearly stated that the report was called from
him and after the order, he has submitted record of Bhu Adhikar & Rin
Pustika (Ex.P-6) before the Tehsildar and in page no.12 of the record of Bhu
Adhikar & Rin Pustika, it bear the sign of Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8).
The dispute was raised by Pramila Raut who was at that time posted in the
copying section and there was a dispute between Pramila Raut and this
applicant. The prosecution has failed to prove that the document was forged
by this applicant and he has been made an accused only on the basis that he
was the reader of that Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the case
after the disposal was sent to record room, the matter was listed before
Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) and in the document (Ex.P-2) at that time,
also Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) has not made any FIR. At the time of
investigation, the document was recovered from the possession of Smt.
Farida Shiekh, Steno of SDM (PW-1) and not from the custody of this
applicant. When it was found that the forged order was attached with the
record, it was also not in the custody of the applicant. Hence, the applicant
could not have been convicted for the offence but the trial Court and
Appellate Court had not considered this aspect and convicted the applicant
for forging the document and using the forged document as a genuine.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per the
departmental enquiry conducted by the Collector, it was found that the
document was forged by this applicant. After that, the FIR was lodged. He
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
3 CRR-1789-2012
has also submitted that the trial Court and Appellate Court has rightly
convicted the applicant. No case for interference is made out. Hence, this
Criminal Revision be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On this point, Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) has stated that from
1994 to 1999, he was posted as a Naib Tehsildar in Tehsil Saunsar, District
Chhindwara and on 17.11.1997, on account of transfer of Tehsildar, he was
performing his duties as In-charge Tehsildar and the applicant-Tejram Sirse
was working as a reader to Tehsildar Court. After a period of 6-7 months of
17.11.1997, clerk Pramila Raut from copying section had submitted an order
dated 17.11.1997 before C.L. Chanab (PW-8) and on examining the same, it
was found that the said document was not signed by him but it was signed by
any other person. However, clerk Pramila Raut had also informed mutation
order to the SDO (Revenue). Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted through
Naib Tehsildar, Bichhua but he was not aware of the result of the order-sheet
dated 17.11.1997 (Ex.P-8) presented before him by copying clerk Pramila
Raut. In 1998, he was transferred to Pandhurna. Hence, he could not tell
what happened after that. The Police has recorded his statement and his
signatures were obtained in six copies and Police seized them as per Seizure
Memo (Ex.P-9). The Police also seized sample of natural handwriting (Ex.P-
10 to Ex.P-16) that bear his signature in A to A part.
7. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that in the order
of amendment in the record, he has signed that in record of Bhu Adhikar &
Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6) on page 5, A to A is signed by him and the Bhu
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
4 CRR-1789-2012
Adhikar & Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6) has been issued by him and in the Kist
Bandi Khatoni (Ex.P-7), he has singed. He has also admitted that the cases
which are disposed of by his Court are signed by him and the Dak Book is
signed by him. The record was sent from record room to copying section or
Tehsildar Court, he could not explain.
8. This witness has also stated that he could not tell where the
document was signed by forged person and he is also not aware that who has
signed the forged document and he has not filed any report. He has also
admitted that on 17.11.1997, the Lok Adalat was organised and there was a
large gathering and the case was fixed in the case diary/causelist and the
causelist was maintained in his Court. In that diary, each case is mentioned.
He has further stated that no separate diary is prepared but causelist is
prepared and they see the causelist for which purpose the case is listed but he
was unable to see the causelist of 17.11.1997.
9. This witness has not seen the order that was passed and said to be
signed by him. He has not found any illegality in the order and only
difference was found in the signatures.
10. In paragraph no.9 of this witness, he has further admitted that with
the certainty, he could not say that the order (Ex.P-8) in that case was passed
by him or not and only on the doubt as raised by the clerk of copying
section, he became doubtful.
11. This witness has further admitted that the order-sheet was written
by his reader. Generally in most of the cases, order-sheet is written by
reader. He has also admitted that without inquiring the disputed signature, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
5 CRR-1789-2012
has issued the copy of that order. He has not seen the order-sheet or record
before issuing the copy and stated that only on the assurance of copyist, he
has signed that document. He has also admitted that Pramila Raut at a time
was his reader and she was having good relation with him. He has denied the
suggestion that on persuasion of Pramila Raut, he has falsely alleged the
applicant that he has forged the document. He has also admitted that the
applicant has not received any illegal benefit by that order and the party has
not made any complaint regarding that order.
12. Thus, the person whose order is stated to be forged has clearly
stated that on the causelist of that day, that case was listed before Tehsildar
C.L. Chanab (PW-8). He has also admitted that it was a Lok Adalat in which
there was a large gathering and in that, this order was passed. He has also
admitted that the order-sheet was written by his reader. No illegality was
found in the order. He has also admitted that before enquiry, he got suspicion
which was raised by the copyist and he had issued the certified copy of that
order. Furthermore, when this order was put in execution as stated by this
witness and Patwari Rajkumar Jaiswal who has made an amendment in Bhu
Adhikar Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6) and Kist Bandi Khatoni (Ex.P-7) were signed
by this witness.
13. From the statement of Patwari (PW-7), it is also worth mentioned
that when the case was presented for the mutation. He has submitted the
report and the status of spot. This witness has also admitted that the Lok
Adalat was being organised. Hence, the case was fixed for hearing in Lok
Adalat and Tehsildar (PW-8) himself has ordered to produce the record for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
6 CRR-1789-2012
his comment. After amendment, the record was submitted before the
Tehsildar and Tehsildar has singed the documents. After amendment in Bhu
Adhikar Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6), the Tehsildar himself has submitted the copy
of the order to applicant and after the finalisation of the case, after two years
no dispute was raised regarding the genuineness of disputed order. This
witness has also admitted that the Tehsildar was well aware of this order and
in whose favour the mutation was recorded was already in possession of that
land and the names of Manglibai and Gajanand were removed from the
record as per the order of Civil Court.
14. Thus, these two material witnesses have clearly stated that the case
was fixed on the Lok Adalat and the order had been passed and date was
fixed for Lok Adalat. Tehsildar never raised the doubt that the order is not
signed by him. When the suspicion was created by copyist then he became
the suspicion regarding his signature and before that the order was executed
by Tehsildar himself and he has verified and signed the revenue record Bhu
Adhikar Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6) and Kist Bandi Khatoni (Ex.P-7) and provided
the copy of the order to the applicant who has filed for the mutation. After
completion of the proceeding, the record was sent in the record room.
15. When the case was presented before Tehsildar for copying the
person Pramila Raut who was having inimical relation with the applicant has
raised the correctness of the order on the basis that it did not bear the
signature of the Tehsildar. After that also the Tehsildar was not sure that the
order (Ex.P-8) was signed by him or not.
16. Though, the handwriting expert A. C. Namdeo (PW-12) has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
7 CRR-1789-2012
that Ex.P-8 does not bear the signature of the Tehsildar but on the
comparison of the signatures of applicant-Tejram Sirse that were obtained by
Investigating Officer P.S. Dhurve (PW-9). From P-25 to P-30, the
handwriting expert has stated that it could not be said that these signatures
were made by this applicant.
17. In these circumstances, it was not clear case against the applicant
that he has forged the document. Furthermore, in the criminal cases, it is the
strict liability of prosecution to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt
and from the material brought before Court, it is clear that the prosecution
failed to prove that the applicant only has signed the document and forged
the order.
18. Furthermore, witness D.R. Kurre (PW-2) has stated that the
inquiry was made and sanction to prosecute was granted as per the order of
Collector but the inquiry report has not been submitted before the Court and
record of the inquiry report is not part of the prosecution case and inquiry
Officer has not stated on what basis he came to conclusion that only the
applicant has forged the order (Ex.P-8).
19. Taking into consideration to all the documents on record, the
applicant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, the applicant is acquitted
from the charges under Sections 466 and 471 of IPC. The conviction
recorded by the trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court is quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed.
20. The applicant is on bail and bail bonds of the applicant are
discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30317
8 CRR-1789-2012
21. With the copy of this order, the record of trial court and appellate
court be sent back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
