LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-58

MAHENDRA NANJIBHAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 10, 2007
MAHENDRA NANJIBHAI MEHTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.2 and learned PAP for the State.

(2.) By this revision petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2nd September 1998 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge.

(3.) The respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Girgaum interalia alleging that the petitioners were the Directors of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical Industries Ltd. (for short "Saurashtra Cements") The respondent no.2 through his wife Devakidevi had dealing with Saurashtra Cements for more than 35 years, but no amount was due by Devkidevi or the respondent no.1 to Saurashtra Cements. However, said Saurashtra Cement falsely prepared a document purporting to be an acknowledgment of the balance due which was signed by B.M. Attara (original accused no.3, who is since deceased, and is hereinafter referred to as the "accused no.3"). The accused no.3 was also an employee of Saurashtra cements. The present petitioners who were the directors in charge and managing the day to day affairs of Saurashtra Cements with the help of accused no.3 had prepared the false acknowledgement and had sought to use the same as a valuable security and/or an acknowledgement of the liability against the respondent no.2 and/or his wife in a civil suit filed against them. The respondent no.2 alleged that he/his had given a limited Power of Attorney to accused no.3 for a different purpose. The said Power of Attorney did not give any authority to the accused no.3 to acknowledge any liability and the letter of acknowledgement was falsely prepared under the signature of respondent no.3 by the petitioners and the Saurashtra Cements without any power or authority to the accused no.3. All the accused had acted in collusion and had prepared the false document and were trying to use it as evidence and thereby they had committed offences of forgery and other offences.