High Court

Legal Reasoning

CriAppeal-584-2004+-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2004The State of Maharashtra… AppellantVersusMadhav Meghaji NivageAge : 48 years, Occupation Service,R/o : Balepeer, Nagar Road,Beed, Taluka and District Beed.… RespondentWITHCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2004Madhav s/o Meghaji NivageAged : 45 Years, Occ. Service asPolice Head Constable,Police Station Shirsala, Taluka Parali-Vaijnath, District Beed,R/o Balepeer, Beed.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,through the Police Station Officer,Police Station Beed [City],Beed.… Respondent…..Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Appellant-State in Criminal AppealNo. 584 of 2004 and the Respondent in Criminal Revision ApplicationNo. 183 of 2004.Ms. Rekha Choudhari and Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocates for theRespondent in Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2004 and the Applicant inCriminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004...... CriAppeal-584-2004+-2- CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 18.06.2025Pronounced on: 02.07.2025JUDGMENT : 1.This is a State Appeal, challenging the judgment and orderdated 17.04.2004 passed by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional SessionsJudge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2003, arising out of thejudgment and order dated 21.02.2003 passed by learned 5th J.M.F.C.,Beed in R.C.C. No. 418 of 1997. On the other hand, the accused also preferred CriminalRevision Application against the same judgment and orderchallenging his conviction under Section 471 of the IPC. Hence, both the proceedings are taken up for hearing anddecided together by this common judgment.2.Learned APP pointed out that charge was framed againstpresent respondent-convict for commission of offence under Sections199, 200, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the premise that respondent-convict submitted forged and fabricated caste certificate for gainingemployment as a Constable in Police Department. Subsequently, on CriAppeal-584-2004+-3- complaint and inquiry it was revealed that, the very caste certificatetendered by the respondent-convict was forged. However, same wasdeliberately and dishonestly tendered to procure employment.Therefore, on report of the Superintendent working in the S.P. Office,Beed, complaint was lodged. Investigation was carried out and finally,the respondent-convict was chargesheeted vide R.C.C. No. 418 of1997. That, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to convict the respondent for offenceunder Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and acquitted him from othercharges.3.Learned APP further pointed out that against said judgmentand order of conviction, respondent-convict preferred appeal beforelearned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed vide CriminalAppeal No. 20 of 2003. That, in the same, learned 2nd AdhocAdditional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the convictionunder Section 468 IPC and only held respondent-accused guilty ofoffence under Section 471 IPC. 4.Learned APP further submitted that respondent had playedfraud on the Government. He had intentionally, dishonestly andknowingly tendered forged, fabricated and manufactured caste CriAppeal-584-2004+-4- certificate claiming himself to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe[ST]. That, in fact he was from Maratha community. A detail inquirywith Collector Officer revealed that fabricated and forged documentwas procured only to gain employment. Learned APP submits that infact, such act of the respondent amounts to depriving the real andworthy, suitable candidate from ST category from gainingemployment. Therefore, along with commission of offence underSection 471, learned First Appellate Court ought to have heldrespondent guilty under Section 468 IPC also. Even acquittal ofrespondent by learned J.M.F.C. from charge under Section 420 IPCwas unwarranted, more particularly as there was use of castecertificate with dishonest intention of cheating the Government.Therefore, learned APP questions the judgment passed by learnedJ.M.F.C. as well as learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, andurges to allow the appeal for the grounds spelt out in appeal memo.5.Learned counsel for the respondent-original accused, who hasalso preferred Criminal Revision Application, supports the acquittal atthe hands of learned J.M.F.C. from charge under Sections 420, 199and 200 of IPC, as well as acquittal by learned Adhoc AdditionalSessions Judge from offence under Sections 468 IPC. Learned counselquestions the conviction awarded under Section 471 IPC on the CriAppeal-584-2004+-5- ground that, the essential ingredients for the same are not met. That,there was no legally acceptable evidence in support of charge underSection 471 IPC. Therefore, he finds fault in the manner ofappreciation of evidence by both, the learned trial Judge as well asthe learned first appellate court. In the alternative, learned counselfor respondent-revisionist would submit that, if at all the Court isupholding the judgment of the first appellate court, then, therespondent-revisionist be extended benefit of the Probation ofOffenders Act. In support of such contention, learned counsel seeksreliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P.v. Ranjit Singh 1999 AIR SC 1201, Vilas Gunda Shirolkar v. State ofMaharashtra 2024(1) BomCR (Cri) 435 : 2023 ALL MR(Cri) 2505and Rajaram Nago Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.[Cri.WP 1489 of 2022 decided by this Court at Aurangabad on29.08.2023].EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT6.In support of its case, prosecution has examined in all 10witnesses. Their role and status and their evidence can besummarized as under : CriAppeal-584-2004+-6- PW1Informant Sayyed Rahematullah was the Superintendent atS.P. Office Beed. His evidence at Exhibit 17/C is as under :1.Since 1.1.1994 I am office Supdt. in S.P. office Beed. On2.3.1994 S.P. Beed ordered me to lodge report againstMadhav Meghaji Nivage. I know Madhav Meghaji Nivage.Accused before the Court is the same. He was appointed on17.10.1978 as Police Constable. On the basis of his castecertificate. His caste is considered to be Scheduled Tribe asMahadeo Koli.2.On 27.12.1998 one unnamed application received atS.P. office Beed. It was alleged in that application that accusedis by caste Maratha. However, he obtained caste certificate asMahadeo Koli and got service. On the basis of that application,report of Nanded S.P. was called. Now, unnamed applicationshown to me same. It is at Exh.18/C. The S.P. Nanded madeenquiry and on 4.1.1990 submitted the report to S.P. Beed. Itsxerox copy is on record. The S. P. Nanded have mentioned inthe report that the relatives of the accused are of Marathacaste. His real brother also from Maratha Caste and accusedalso from Maratha State.3.The collector Nanded has also submitted his report on7.3.1991 that the caste certificate obtained by accused isillegal. Now, report shown to me is the same. It bearssignature of Collector, Nanded. The contents therein are trueand correct. It is at Exh. 19/C. As per the order of S.P. Beed on CriAppeal-584-2004+-7- 10.3.1994 I lodged the report. Now, report shown to me is thesame. It bears my signature. The contents therein are true andcorrect. It is at Exh. 20/C.PW2Madhav Mariba Jadhav, at Exhibit at 24/C, deposed as under :I was on duty as a Talathi of Sajja Biloli since 1.8.1990.I know the father of accused and his sons Shriram, Laxmanand Madhav (accused). The accused has agriculture land atBiloli. The accused belong to Maratha Caste. The certificatewhich I have issued on 5/6/1997 is true. The certificate nowshown to me is the same. It’s contents are true and correct. Itbears my signature. It is at Ex. 24.PW3Pandurang Pawade, Police Patil gave evidence at Exhibit 25/Cas under :I am working as a Police Patil at Biloli since 1988. Iknow Meghaji Nivage and his sons. Shriram, Madhav, Laxmanetc. all r/o Biloli. I knew the accused before Court. Theaccused belong to Maratha caste. It is true to say that I haveissued a certificate on 5.6.1997. Certificate now shown to meis the same. Its contents are true and correct. It bears mysignature. It is at Exh. 25/1. There are no people in my villagewhich is of from Mahadeo Koli caste and as a surname Nivage. CriAppeal-584-2004+-8- PW4Md. Abdul Javed, resident of same village, deposed as under :I know the accused. He belongs to my city. It is true tosay that I was the council of Ward No. 14in the year 1997. Theaccused is resident of my ward. I know the accused, hisbrother and his parents. The accused is serving as police.Accused belongs to Maratha caste. Now the certificate dated5.6.1997 shown to me is the same. It bears my signature. Itscontents are true and correct. It is at Exh.26/1.PW5Gangaram Shinde deposed at Exhibit 27/C as under :I am belonging to Maratha caste. Meghaji Nivage, SonbaNivage and accused Madhav are my relations. I know to them.Accused belong to Maratha caste. The accused is my brother-in-law. I have no knowledge whether the people belong toMahadeo Koli here a surname as a Nivage or not. This witness was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-examination by learned APPPW6Ankush Bhosle, Police Head Constable posted at Beed CityPolice Station, gave evidence at Exhibit 28/C as under :On 10.3.1994 I was working at Beed City Police Stationas P.S.O. Complainant Sayyed Rahematullah had filed a CriAppeal-584-2004+-9- complaint and registered the same at crime No.87/94. On theorder of P.I. & handed over investigation to P.S.I. Dhedkar.The complaint filed by Rahematullah is now shown to me issame. It is at Exh. 20.PW7Ravindra Dhedkar, who was the Investigation Officer, gavefollowing evidence at Exhibit 29/C :On 10.3.1994 I was at Beed City Police Station. Stationin-charge registered the crime no. 87/94 & handed overinvestigation to me. The crime was registered against HeadConstable Madhav Nivage. The complaint was annexed withall documents. The crime was registered after departmentalenquiry. Shri Sayyed Rahematullah had filed the case againstthe accused. Thereafter P. J. Wadje took over investigationfrom me to him. In this crime, accused obtained anticipatorybail. I can identify the accused if seen. Accused is present inthe court today.PW8Tatyasaheb Bhojne, P.I. at Ambajogai Police Station, is anotherInvestigating Officer, who in his evidence at Exhibit 30/Cdeposed about recording statements of relatives of accused,Sarpancha of village and Head Master of Zilla Parishad HighSchool, about collecting caste certificate from school and aftercompletion of investigation, submitting charge sheet againstthe accused. CriAppeal-584-2004+-10- PW9Eknath Landge, who was Assistant Teacher at Zilla ParishadLahan High School at Ardhpur, District Nanded, deposed atExhibit 37 as under :I was at Biloli from 1984 to 2001 as Asstt. Teacher. Soalso I was in-charge Head Master for some period. Policerecorded my statement. As per that, I saw the record of theschool in respect of admission certificate of one MadhavMeghaji Nivage. I observed in that certificate the caste asMaratha. At that time S. R. Gangamwar was Head Master. Thecertificate in respect of admission issued by the said HeadMaster is report. The extract now shown to me is the same,which was issued by Head Master Gangamwar. I know hissignature, as I was Assistant teacher under him and workedunder him.PW10Nagnath Shinde, Head Master at Biloli, deposed at Exh. 41 asunder :I have brought register in respect of transfer andadmission register pertaining no. 147/529. This entry is in thename of Bilolikar Madhav Meghaji. This certificate is similarwith the copy in the present case- There is “Maratha” castementioned in the register. The entries in the said register andthe certificate issued by school authority bears same contents.Now the certificate is shown to me is the same. It is at Exh. 42. CriAppeal-584-2004+-11- 7.After analyzing the evidence of 10 witnesses and studying thedocumentary evidence, learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to accept thecase of prosecution, but only as regards the offence under Sections468 and 471 of IPC, and acquitted the respondent from other chargesi.e. under Sections 199, 200 and 420 of IPC. The matter was taken upto the next level by none other than present respondent/revisionist,by questioning the judgment passed by learned J.M.F.C. by filingCriminal Appeal No. 20 of 2002 and the first appellate court waspleased to acquit the respondent from charge under Section 468 IPC,but upheld the conviction for charge under Section 471 IPC videjudgment dated 17.04.2004, which is now impugned herein by both,the State in appeal as well as the respondent-accused by filingCriminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004.8.Undertook the exercise of re-appreciation and re-analysis of theentire evidence, and it is thereupon emerging that accused does nothave distinct caste certificate issued by competent authority certifyinghim to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli caste, and inquiry conductedwith Revenue authorities as well as police department demonstratedthat, he rather belongs to Maratha caste. However, the very act ofcommitting forgery or manufacturing certificate has not been proved CriAppeal-584-2004+-12- by the prosecution and therefore both, learned trial court as well aslearned first appellate court, in the considered opinion of this Court,have not committed any patent error or perversity in acquitting theaccused from rest of the charges. Guilt of the accused is concurrentlyheld established for offence under Section 471 of IPC. 9.It is settled law that, to bring home the charge under Section471 IPC, prosecution is expected to fulfill availability of keyingredients like, document or electronic record to be forged; secondly,it must be shown that accused had used the said document posingitself to be genuine; and thirdly, accused himself knows or he musthave reasons to believe that the document which he is tendering or heis possessing and put to use, is in fact manufactured and forged one.He must have deliberately used it to show that it is genuine. Hisknowledge and reason to believe are co-related and prosecution mustprove that, at the time of putting the document to use, he carriedculpability in doing so and must have fraudulently and dishonestlyused the same.10.Here, at the time of securing employment, accused had put touse and tendered document Exhibit 21. On receipt of anonymouscomplaint, document was sent for verification with the authorities CriAppeal-584-2004+-13- who were authorized to issued caste certificate. On receipt of reportfrom such authority about not issuing any caste certificate in favour ofpresent respondent/revisionist, police authorities have undertaken thestep of lodging report. Learned counsel for respondent would submitthat there is no mens rea in doing the above act and secondly,authorities with whom inquiry was conducted, are not examined andas such, the very basis or foundational facts are not proved here, andso he questions the implication as well as guilt recorded underSection 471 IPC.11.This Court is not convinced with the above submissions for thesimple reason that, here, there is no denial that the document hasbeen tendered by the respondent/revisionist while seekingemployment. He has not disowned and denied its use. By use ofcertificate of caste to which he never belonged, a seat of a deservingcandidate has been usurped and forged, false document is tendered.He has thereby deprived a meritorious deserving candidate from aparticular category and therefore, here, in the light of above material,this Court also agrees with the findings of both, learned trial court aswell as the first appellate court, that the ingredients for attractingSection 471 IPC are indeed available in the prosecution evidence.Accused has not denied production of the forged document and had CriAppeal-584-2004+-14- put it to use. Resultantly, required ingredients for attracting Section471 IPC being available, even this Court does not hesitate in agreeingwith the findings reached at by both, learned trial court as well asfirst appellate court.12.Learned counsel for respondent-accused would submit thatconsidering the offence, the judgment of conviction to be dated21.02.2003 i.e. more than two decades back, and that appellanthaving now attained the age of 65 years, he seeks benefit of Probationof Offenders Act. However, this Court is not impressed with aboverequest for the same reason that, there is use of forged document,depriving a deserving suitable candidate from a particular caste, togain employment and therefore such case does not deserve extensionof benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, considering thelong tenure undergone with a sword of conviction hanging over thehead, sentence awarded by learned first appellate court for the periodof two years is reduced to three months. Hence, the following order ispassed :ORDERI.Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2004 is hereby dismissed.II.Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004 is partly allowed. CriAppeal-584-2004+-15- III.The conviction awarded to the revision applicant Madhav s/oMeghaji Nivage by learned 5th J.M.F.C. Beed in R.C.C. No. 418 of1997 under Section 471 of IPC on 21.02.2003 and confirmed bylearned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in CriminalAppeal No. 20 of 2003 by judgment and order dated 17.04.2004is hereby maintained.HOWEVERIV.The sentence is reduced and instead of two years, the appellantis hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)months for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.V.There shall be no change in the fine amount as well as thedefault sentence.VI.Rest of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2004passed by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed inCriminal Appeal No. 20 of 2003 is kept intact. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre