JUDGMENT :

1. The above appeal and criminal revision arise out of the Judgment dated 27.08.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Amravati. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati by his order dated 27.08.2004 acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 5 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the revision application) of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The informant Sharad Bonde, at the relevant time, was working as ‘Assistant Superintendent’ in Amravati University, Amravati. The informant and the accused No. 3 were acquainted with each other. The informant learnt from the accused that the plot No. 47 belonging to one member of Samata Gruh Nirman Sahkari Society, Amravati was available for sale. The informant and the accused No. 3, therefore, approached the accused No.1. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 represented to the informant that the original owner of the said plot had sold the said plot to the accused No.1 (now deceased). The accused Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the plot to informant @ of Rs.80/- per Sq.Ft. The informant paid Rs.90,000/- to the accused No.1 in presence of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. They promised to transfer the plot in the name of the informant in the record of society. It is stated that, on 09.09.2000, the accused Nos.1 to 3 brought one unknown person in the office of Society and introduced the said person as Bhalchandra Harihar Sarjoshi, the original owner of the plot. The accused No.4, the president of the society and the accused No. 6, the Secretary of the Society in the Society office confirmed that the person brought by them was Bhalchandra Sarjoshi, the owner of the plot. The transaction of sale was finalized. The informant paid Rs.1,82,000/- to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 executed a document on a stamp paper. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 signed the said document as attesting witnesses. The accused No.1 had taken Rs.48,000/- from the informant as a brokerage charges. On 09.09.2000, the documents such as Sanmati lekh, possession deed and membership surrender letter were executed. On 12.09.2000, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 accepted Rs.8,311/- towards the transfer charges of the plot in the name of the informant. On 19.10.2000, the plot was transferred and allotted in the name of the informant.

3. It is stated that on 08.06.2001, the informant applied for permission to make the construction on the said plot. At that time, the Society by written letter informed him that the plot belongs to Bhalchandra Sarjoshi and therefore, permission for construction cannot be granted. On receipt of the said letter, on 19.06.2001, the informant made an inquiry and came to know that on the basis of the forged documents he was deceived by the accused persons. He, therefore, lodged the report at police station. The crime bearing No. 348 of 2001 came to be registered against the accused for the above offences. PW-3 conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the accused.

4. Learned JMFC framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. PW-2 is the owner of the plot Mr Bhalchandra Sarjoshi. PW-3 is the investigating Officer. All the accused persons, in support of their defence, examined one defence witness. Learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed the appeal against the order of the acquittal. The informant being aggrieved by the said order of the acquittal filed the criminal revision application.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the accused persons, learned