KISHOR CHUNILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A three wheeler meant for earning income landed both the parties in difficulties. The two accused are being placed in the dock while the complainant, who is required to part with additional amount as also required almost to purchase litigation along with it. The petitioners herein are brothers, who are alleged to have indulged in venture in booking orders for registering scooters and three wheelers with Bajaj Auto Company under pseudo names with a modus operandi to get the vehicles under those different names and to sell those earning some profits by which, as per the prosecution, some documents came to be forged while they indulged in breach of impugned order under which there was prohibition from transferring the vehicles for a period of two years. One such three wheeler was booked by the petitioners in the name of Pravinchandra Natoriya in the year 1967 with the said company. The complainant, who lost his service decided to autorickshaw plying and as such was on the look out for a three wheeler. On getting information he approached the accused sometime in the year 1969-70 with a proposal to purchase a three wheeler and that the accused assured to sell the same within 3-4 months. A deal was struck under which though the official price was Rs. 8,500/- the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 11,500/- and thereby the petitioners-accused were expected to make a profit of three thousand rupees. It was in the month of April 1970 that the Company informed the petitioners-accused though in the pseudo name as Natoriya that allotment of scooter was ready for deliver in the name of Pravinchandra. Accordingly on 20-4-1970 the accused issued an authority letter authorising the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle directly from the Company. Armed with that letter the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle, though the amount was paid by accused No.1. While the authority letter was signed in the purported name of Pravinchandra by accused No. 2 and that is how each of the accused is alleged to have contributed his part towards the conspiracy. On taking the delivery of the vehicle by the complaintant, which was obviously for and on behalf of Pravinchandra on 30-4-1970. On the same day the complainant accompanied by accused No. 1 went to R.T.O. Office, Pune where the scooter was duly registered, which obviously had to be in the name of Pravinchandra. A number plate was allotted. After some days, the complainant again approached the accused as his permit was to expire and since he required renewal of the Permit, he desired that the vehicle should be transferred in his name. Accordingly accused and presumably accused No. 2 gave him a letter and application for permission for transfer of the vehicle and asked him to contact the Director of Transport. Bombay, for the said purpose. The complainant approached the said office obviously being oblivious to the potential danger and the lapse that was being committed when he was informed by the Director that he had been the victim of cheating by the accused persons since the vehicle could not be transferred in his name. Instead of therefore, getting the vehicle transferred in the complainants name the papers were entrusted to the Police by the Director when the investigation commenced. It transpired that the orders were booked in the fictitious name of Pravinchandra, signed by accused No. 2 and all applications were also signed in the pseudo name of accused No. 2, while accused No. 1 had also contributed to the same. It also transpired that breach of Clause 9 of the Scooters (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1960 was committed, which was punishable under section 24(1)(iii) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

(2.) After completing investigation both the accused were charge-sheeted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No. 10114 of 1975 for offences under sections 419, 420, 465 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Clause 9 of the Scooters (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order) read with section 24(1)(iii) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), alleging that they cheated the complainant as well as the Company and for that purpose certain documents were forged which were used as genuine documents and they also committed breach of the impugned order.

(3.) Pleading not guilty to the charge, both the accused denied all the adverse allegations disowning any participation in the episode. Thus allegations of forgery and using forged documents were denied while allegations of cheating were also denied. Same stance was taken as regards the breach of Order and Act.