VIJAY HATHISINGH SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. KP Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the the State - respondent No.1 and Mr.V.M. Pancholi, learned advocate waive the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent named Mr.J.M. Chaudhary and Mr.NS Sheth, learned advocate, waive the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent named Mr.DJ Bharvad, in both the petitions.

(2.) Before considering the submissions made and contentions raised on behalf of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, few facts and chronological list of events, which are necessary for the purpose of determining both these petitions are as under:

(3.) Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused No.1 has submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It is submitted that the witnesses to the Will dated 6/11/1989 whose signatures are alleged to have been forged have themselves not initiated any criminal proceeding. It is submitted that when these witnesses attested to the Will, the complainant was not in the picture at all and he has entered the scene only on 29/9/1997 when the aforesaid two sons of the testator executed a registered Agreement to Sell in his favour for sale of the aforesaid two parcels of land. It is submitted that there are only two ways of knowing whether forgery has taken place or not namely [i] either by personal knowledge or [ii] by information from third party. It is submitted that the allegations of forgery in the complaint made by the complainant are neither based on personal knowledge nor on information obtained from third parties. Therefore, it is submitted that without a specific source being disclosed, the complainant who is a mere holder of the agreement to sell, has no locus standi to file the complaint.