MALLINATH AMBANNA SHEDJALE Vs. PURUSHOTTAM VASUDEO SOMSHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the original complainant Mallinath Ambanna Shedjale, challenging the judgment and order dated 5-8-1993 of acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (original accused persons) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur in Criminal Case No. 27/1990.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of this revision by the original complainant against the order passed in a case filed by police, briefly stated, are as follows :-The petitioner and original accused No. 1 present respondent No. 1, entered into an agreement of partnership on 10-12-1987. The business of the firm was to undertake transport operations by truck. The truck was purchased for Rs. 90,000/- and it was alleged that the original accused No. 1, the respondent No. 1, herein, was to contribute about Rs. 45,000/ -. The partnership, however, could not continue and it was allegedly dissolved. The truck subsequently came to be sold. There arose civil dispute between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1. There was exchange of notices and eventually a civil suit came to be filed by respondent No. 1. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 1387/1988. The respondent No. 1 sought settlement of accounts and also asked for appointment of receiver and certain interim reliefs. This suit filed by respondent No. 1, however, was dismissed on 27-2-1989. The suit came to be dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent had not placed on record the certificate of registration of the firm. It appears that the partnership firm of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, as referred earlier, was not registered. The petitioner apprehended that the respondent No. 1 should approach the Registrar of firms for getting the firm registered and therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Registrar of firms, requesting the Registrar of firms, not to register the firm in question. The petitioner came to know that despite his objection before the Registrar of firms to the registration of the firm, the firm came to be registered. The petitioner made enquiries and came to know that an application in form A for registration of the firm, had been filed before the Registrar firms and that instead of petitioners signature somebody had forged his signature at the relevant column. The petitioner, therefore, lodged report in the Police Station against respondents 1 to 3. On the basis of the petitioners complaint, an offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the I. P. Code came to be registered and investigation followed.

(3.) DURING the investigation, the specimen hand writings of respondents 1 to 3 were obtained by police. The specimen handwriting was obtained and the writings on the Form A which was submitted to the Registrar firm, were sent for comparison by handwriting expert. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed by police against respondents 1, 2 and 3. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 were tried before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. During the trial, respondent No. 3 (original accused No. 3) did not dispute his signature below the certificate in Form-A. The hand writing expert also opined that the specimen handwriting of original accused No. 3 tallied with his admitted signature which handwriting marked as Q. The hand writing expert, however, stated that the signature of the petitioner which came to be marked as Q-1 on form-A, was not the signature of the petitioner. The hand writing expert, however, stated that it was not possible to say as to who had forged the signature. In other words, handwriting expert did not say whether the forgery was committed by any of the accused persons. After recording the evidence, as above, the learned Judge, however, proceeded to hold that no offence was proved against any of the accused persons. Learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons by the impugned order. This order of acquittal is under challenge in this revision.