CHATRABHUJ VITTHALRAO CHALAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41210


                                                                              53.22revn
                                                       (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2022


                 Chatrabhuj s/o Vitthalrao Chalak                 ….APPLICANT

                       VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through P. I. Kaij, Police Station,
                 Beed                                             ….RESPONDENT
                                                    …..
                 Mr Ashish P. Hazari, Advocate h/f Mr Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for
                 Applicant
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent/State
                                                 …..

                                            CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                              DATE : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.           The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated

                 4/11/2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81/2015, wherein the

                 learned Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, dismissed his appeal. In the said

                 appeal, the applicant had challenged his conviction judgment and order

                 dated 28/09/2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

                 Class, Kaij in R.C.C. No.216/2011, wherein he came to be convicted

                 for the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code

                 (for short “IPC”) and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for
                                                                53.22revn
                                   (2)

one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to pay fine, to

suffer simple imprisonment for two months.


2.           Heard Mr. Ashish P. Hazari, learned Advocate holding for

Advocate Mr. Amol B. Chalak for the applicant and Mr. C. V.

Bhadane, learned APP for the State.


3.           The brief facts of the case are as follows:

      (a)    On 25/06/2011, the informant PSI Ramakant Dhondiba

Panchal, on the basis of secret information, conducted a raid at the S.T.

bus stand, Kaij, Dist Beed. In view of the said raid, he searched the

applicant, who was standing at the bus stand, and during the search,

one fake laminated identity card, issued by Social Welfare Department,

Zilla Parishad, Beed for handicapped person, was seized from the

applicant. The said fake identity card was being used for getting a

concession of 1/4th rupees from the entire bus fare. The applicant had

admitted that he is healthy and having no any physical disability.


      (b)    After seizing the said identity card, panchanama was

carried out and the applicant was prosecuted for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 465, and 471 of the IPC. After investigation,

the charge sheet was filed against the applicant.
                                                                53.22revn
                                   (3)

        (c)   The   prosecution    has   examined     seven   witnesses.

PW-1/Pappu Vijaykumar Ingale, seizure panch witness; PW-2/

Mahadeo Satwa Satpute and PW-3/Vishal Babanrao Wadmare, both of

whom were police constables and were present during the raid. PW-

4/Balu Ram Kachule, who is the second seizure panch witness. PW-

5/Ramakant Dhondiba Panchal, the informant, who conducted the raid

and filed complaint at Exhibit 23. PW-6/API Haribhau Fattu Rathod,

the investigating officer and PW-7/Sunil Keshav Kumbhare, a District

Animal Husbandry Officer.


        (d)   The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaij, vide his

judgment and order dated 28/09/2015 convicted the applicant for the

offence punishable under Section 465 of the IPC and sentenced him as

aforesaid.


        (e)   Being aggrieved by the judgment, the applicant preferred

appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist.

Beed. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the applicant

by confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Kaij.


              Therefore, being aggrieved by the two concurrent

findings, the applicant has approached this Court by filing present
                                                                53.22revn
                                   (4)

criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.


4.          Mr Hazari, learned Advocate for applicant submits the

judgment and orders of the learned Courts below are illegal and not

sustainable in law. He then submits that the prosecution has failed to

prove the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code against

the applicant. According to him, the applicant cannot be convicted on

the basis of the evidence brought by the prosecution before the Court.

He then submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned

Appellate Courts have committed a grave error of law, thereby

convicting him under Section 465 of the IPC. He further submits that

there is nothing on record to suggest that the alleged fake identity card

seized from the applicant, was prepared and manufactured by the

applicant himself for using the same in order to cheat the Maharashtra

State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC).

5.          Mr Hazari further submits that the prosecution witnesses

are police witnesses and no independent witnesses have been

examined. There is no strong evidence against the applicant, so as to

convict him for the charges levelled against him. He further submits

that the applicant has been targeted by the Police Sub-Inspector, who

had a grudge against the applicant.
                                                                53.22revn
                                   (5)

6.           Mr. Hazari then took this Court through the provisions of

Sections 464 and 465 of the IPC, wherein the offence under Section

465 (forgery) has been defined. After reading the said provisions, Mr

Hazari submits that, as per the evidence brought by the prosecution,

the applicant cannot be said to be guilty of the aforesaid offence. He,

therefore, submits that the conviction imposed by the learned Courts

below is not sustainable, and as such, he should be acquitted by

allowing the instant revision application.


7.           Per contra, Mr Bhadane, learned APP for the State

strongly opposes the instant Criminal Revision Application. He

submits that the record discloses strong evidence against the applicant.

The prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that the applicant was

found in possession of a fake identity card and from his possession, the

said fake identity card was seized. The applicant was using the said

fake identity card for the purpose of getting a concession on bus fares.

Thus, there was a clear intention on the part of the applicant to use the

said fake identity card to cheat the Transport Corporation. He,

therefore, submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned

Appellate Courts have passed correct judgments and orders and as

such, no interference of this Court is warranted. Thus, he prays for

dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision Application.
                                                                 53.22revn
                                   (6)

8.           After hearing the learned Advocates for the rival parties

and going through the record available before this court, I found that

the prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the applicant on the basis

of the depositions of seven witnesses.        The testimonies of these

witnesses have been minutely scrutinized. Most of the witnesses are

police witnesses. It is not disclosed, as to how the applicant was using

the said fake identity card in order to cheat the MSRTC.           In the

absence of averments or record to suggest that the applicant was using

the said fake identity card in order to cheat the MSRTC, it cannot be

held that the applicant has caused any loss to the MSRTC. There is

nothing to suggest that the applicant has ever used that fake identity

card for the purpose of cheating the MSRTC.



9.           The panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution.

Moreover, the applicant, in his statement recorded under Section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that the Police Inspector,

who conducted the raid had a previous dispute with the applicant. He

had obtained his photograph from elsewhere and prepared the identity

card. In order to falsely implicate the applicant, the said Police Sub-

Inspector conducted a raid on the basis of alleged secret information

and arrested the applicant from the bus stand, on the pretext that he
                                                                 53.22revn
                                   (7)

was using the said fake identity card in order to cheat the Maharashtra

State Road Transport Corporation.



10.          It appears that the learned lower Courts below have

ignored the provisions of Section 465 of the IPC. In order to attract

the provisions of Section 465, which is for punishment for forgery, the

prosecution is required to establish that the document seized from the

applicant must be a false one and must have been made dishonestly or

fraudulently. It must have been made with the intent to cause damage

or injury to any person. The evidence collected and put forth by the

prosecution before the learned Court below falls short of the said

purposes. The applicant, though found to be in possession of the said

fake identity card, however, it is not established that he intended to use

it in order to cause damage to the MSRTC. There is also nothing on

record on the basis of the said evidence, to suggest that the applicant

had a fraudulent or dishonest intention in order to prepare the alleged

fake identity card. Whether the said fake identity card was prepared or

made by the applicant is also not clearly established. Mere possession

and recovery from the accused regarding the fake document shall not

make him guilty of the offence of forgery.
                                                              53.22revn
                                   (8)

11.         In that view of the matter, the learned lower Courts below

have committed an error in convicting the applicant. Therefore, the

impugned conviction is not sustainable and the present revision

application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order:


                                ORDER

(I).        The instant Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(II).       The judgment and order dated 04/11/2020, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Criminal Appeal

No.81/2015 and judgment and order dated 28/09/2015, passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaij in R.C.C. No.216/2011 are

hereby quashed and set aside.

(III)       The applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 465 registered against him vide Crime No.186/2011 with the

Kaij Police Station, Dist. Beed.

(IV).       Bail bond stands cancelled.

(V).        Record be sent to the Trial Court.




                                     [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk