BHIMRAO GAMBHIR SALUNKE, Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent-State and the learned advocate Mr. Girish Wani waives service for respondent no.2. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused no.2 from S.C.C. No.387 of 2013 from the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamner impugning the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 15.09.2014 directing the process to be issued against him for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Records Act') and dismissal of the Revision preferred by him under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by the impugned order dated 27.10.2017. The respondent no.2 is the original complainant.

(3.) Stated in brief the allegations in the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 are to the effect that he was a protected tenant. The owner of the land instituted a Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1998. One Gopaikabai was the owner. Since she was a widow, the proceeding under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was deferred. In fact his father was the original protected tenant on 01.04.1957. After the demise of grand-father his father was the tenant from 1956 to 1967 and after demise of his father he became the tenant from 23.08.1967. Though he was a tenant, neither he nor his mother and sister were made parties to the Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1998 and only the accused no.1 in collusion with his father Laxman were made parties to that case and only the accused no.1 was declared as deemed owner under Section 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the order dated 05.11.1999. Being aggrieved the respondent no.2 had preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 07 of 1999 before the Deputy Collector. The accused no.1 is the son of that Laxman Joshi who was declared as a deemed owner under Section 32-G. Laxman was the elder brother of the respondent no.2. The appeal was allowed and the accused no.1 preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which confirmed the decision in appeal and by setting aside the decision in the case of Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1998 remanded the case to Tahsildar for decision afresh.