Back
2006 Supreme(Guj) 728
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :RAVI R.TRIPATHI
PATEL LAXMICHAND KASHIRAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 360 Of 2004
Decided On : 11/21/2006
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 and 120 (b) -Criminal Act –Fraud Case- Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is a statement of one was serving as clerk at the relevant time in the office of respondent No. 2 herein. He has categorically stated in his statement that, accused respondent herein made him to and to underline the same and then to write in Gujarati, in a bracket below the first writing. He has explained his act by saying that he was told by accused is sick, he is going to visit him at and at that time he signature – Held, Learned advocate submitted that learned Magistrate has committed an error in granting of accused respondent No. 2 herein on the ground that, the act of registering a document is a part of discharge of his duties as a notary and therefore, without obtaining sanction from the Government, the present petitioner original complainant could not have filed a complaint against accused Learned advocate submitted that forging a document can never be an act of discharging of official duty by a Notary. He submitted that the case of the complainant is that accused No. 4 forged the signature of Late signature is forged to bring an effect that Late identified the person who executed the document official duty of a Notary is to notarize a document and not to forge any signature, either of the document or of the advocate who signs the document stating that he identifies the executor of the document – Revision Application is allowed.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the present applicant ? original complainant filed a complaint on 25. 01. 2002 for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 and 120 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The same was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed a report seeking ?c? Summary. The complainant was heard on the said report.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the complainant that accused taking advantage of a marriage occasion in his family, obtained his signature on a blank stamp paper, with a view to deprive him of the property. Accused No. 3 though knew the complainant, issued a stamp paper in the name of the complainant to accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 registered the same illegally (accused No. 4 is an advocate, who is also appointed as a Notary ).
( 4 ) MR. R. J. GOSWAMI, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is a statement of one Shri Devendrakumar Chandulal Nayak, who was serving as clerk at the relevant time in the office of accused No. 4 ? respondent No. 2 herein. He has categorically stated in his statement that, accused No. 4 ? respondent No. 2 herein made him to write h. R. Panchiwala in English and to underline the same and then to write h. R. Panchiwala in Gujarati, in a bracket below the first writing. He has explained his act by saying that he was told by accused No. 4 that as Mr. H. R. Panchiwala is sick, he (accused No. 4) is going to visit him at Patan and at that time, he (accused No. 4) will obtain Mr. H. R. Panchiwala s signature. He has further stated that, later on, he learnt that some litigation has arisen and his writing in English (H. R. Panchiwala) is misused as the signature of Shri H. R. Panchiwala by writing ?before me?, ?identified by me? and by notarization. He has also stated that he did not have any wrong intention in carrying out the instructions of accused No. 4. He has further stated that, this statement he is giving without being under pressure of anybody and being fully conscious about the same.
( 5 ) MR. GOSWAMI, learned advocate for the petitioner also pointed out a statement of one Shri Abheysinh Umedsinh Thakor, who has stated that he is a practicing advocate for last about 15 years in the Court at Patan; that he knew well Late Shri Hemantkumar Ramanlal Panchiwala (H. R. Panchiwala) as he had worked with him for 7 to 8 years and that he is able to identify the signature of Shri H. R. Panchiwala. He too has stated that the signature on the document is not the signature of Shri H. R. Panchiwala.
( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Goswami next invited attention of the Court to the statement of one Shri Revabhai Bababhai Solanki, who was junior to Late Shri Hemantkumar Ramanlal Panchiwala himself (H. R. Panchiwala ). This advocate has also stated that, he knows the signature of Late Shri H. R. Panchiwala and that the signature on the document in question is not that of Late Shri H. R. Panchiwala.
( 7 ) LAST but not the least, learned advocate Mr. Goswami invited attention of the Court to statement of Smt. Jashodaben, wife of Hemantkumar Ramanlal Panchiwala. But then, she has stated that she will not be able to state as to whether the signature in the document in question is that of her husband or not. She has stated that her husband was admitted for treatment on 26. 04. 1999. Later on, he was shifted to Ahmedabad where he expired on 01. 05. 1999.
( 8 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Goswami su
