(1.) These are appeal and criminal revision filed by the State and original complainant respectively, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, in Regular Criminal Case No. 78 of 1995 on 17.8.1999, whereby original accused Nos. 1 to 3 (present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in appeal and criminal revision) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 464 all read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to present appeal and criminal revision are that, PW4 Subhash Kocheta (applicant in criminal revision) examined at Exhibit 64, lodged complaint (Exh.66) with Ausa Police Station, stating that he was the life member of Shiv Chatrapati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ausa, Respondent No. 3 Namdeo Pawar (orig. accused No. 3) was the Secretary, Respondent No. 1 Mahadeo Bhimrao Jangle (original accused No. 1) was the Head Master working in the school run by the said Mandal. One Anant Baburao Kolpe was the President of the said Mandal. In the academic year 199394, Respondent No. 2 Anil Dattatraya Chaudhary (original accused No. 2), though he had not passed the course of librarian training, was appointed as librarian and approval for his appointment was obtained by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. It is further alleged that PW3 Ramesh Sopanrao Malwad had passed the librarian training course under roll No. 1238 from Latur Centre in the year 1990. Taking advantage of the said certificate and the mark-sheet of PW3 Ramesh, forged documents were prepared, approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 2 was obtained from Zilla Parishad and he was paid salary. Thus, by forging the documents and by using the same, the Institution, so also Zilla Parish, Latur were cheated and salary of one year was paid to Respondent No. 2. Thus, all three accused committed various offences.
(3.) On the basis of the complaint, offences under Section 464, 468 and 420 all read with Section 34 of I.P.C. were registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the Court. Prosecution, in all, examined five witnesses. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the three accused-respondents of the charges levelled against them. It is this judgment and order of acquittal which is challenged before this Court, in the appeal and the revision.