The central legal point established in the judgment is that the effect of a change in the Public Trust Register takes place from the date the resolution is passed, and the provisions of the Penal Code related to forgery require dishonest or fraudulent preparation of a document.

1. The applicants have filed this Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, “the Code”], challenging the order issuing Process against them as well as the subsequent order by which the Revision Application filed by them challenging that order came to be rejected.

2. Facts, in brief, are that Rajmata Jijau Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1951 [for short, “the said Act”]. The non-applicant no.1 herein claims to be the founder member as well as Vice-President of the said Trust. The applicant no.1 is the Headmaster of the school run by the said Trust. He is the brother-in-law of applicant no.2. Applicant no.3 is a Member of said Trust. According to the non-applicant no.1, in Schedule-I of the Public Trust Register his name has been shown as the Vice-president. There is no change made in Schedule-I. When information was sought under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the non-applicant no.1, it was revealed that the present applicants had furnished a letterhead in which different persons were shown as being the office-bearers of the said Trust. The name of one Shri J.P. Lokhande was shown as the Vice- President. According to the non-applicant no.1, without there being any change in the names of the office-bearers and without any such change being accepted, the applicants had got the letter head printed which was an illegal act. Hence, on 3rd May, 2012, a complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of the Code. After recording the statement of non-applicant no.1, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue Process under Sections 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code [for short, “the Penal Code”]. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code. By the impugned order, the Revision Application came to be dismissed.

3. Shri R.G. Kavimandan, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicants were functioning as de facto trustees in view of order dated 12th June, 1996 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Application No. 18 of 1994. Subsequent Change Reports were pending between the parties. Though such Change Reports were not finally accepted, the present applicants were entitled to act in accordance with those Change Reports during pendency of proceedings. He referred to the legal position that the change in the body of the Trust takes effect immediately and it is not dependent upon the final acceptance/rejection of the Change Report. Such entitlement was permissible in view of law laid down in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School & another Vs. Mohinder Kaur [1993 Supp (4) SCC 26], Ganesh Mahadeorao Thawere Vs. Central Hindu Military Education Society & another [2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 589], Chembur Trombay Education Society & others Vs. D.K. Marathe & others [2002 (3) Bom. C.R. 161], and Vijay Mehta & another Vs. Charu K. Mehta & others [2008 (5) Mh. L.J. 853]. It was then submitted that the ingredients of Sections 463 and 465 of the Penal Code had not been made out. There was no question of applicants posing as office-bearers of the Trust in view of the fact that they were doing so pursuant to the various resolutions passed by the Trust. According to the learned counsel, even the report which was called under Section 202 of the Code indicated pendency of disputes before Trust Authorities and, therefore, no offence, whatsoever, had been made out. Without considering the settled legal position, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court passed the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the decision in Harischandra Krishnarao Kulkarni Vs. The State of Mah. & another [2014 AllMR(Cri) 676] in that regard. He, therefore, submitted that the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

4. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the non-applicant, supported the impugned order. According to him, the non-applicant no.1 was t