The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has set aside the conviction of a Talathi (revenue official) accused of forging land records to convert land from Class-2 to Class-1. Justice Abhay S. Waghwase held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the forged documents and could not prove that the accused was the actual author of the alleged interpolations.
The court allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by Madhav Sangram Rajkundle, quashing the orders of the Trial Court (JMFC, Dharmabad) and the First Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli) which had previously held him guilty under Sections 465 (Forgery) and 471 (Using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background
The prosecution’s case originated from a report by the Nayab Tahsildar of Dharmabad. It was alleged that the applicant, while serving as a Talathi at Mauza Chincholi, committed forgery by overwriting and interpolating a 7/12 extract for land in Gut No. 106. The prosecution claimed he converted the land category from Class-2 (tenancy land) to Class-1 to facilitate a sale deed for the second accused.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dharmabad, initially convicted the applicant for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, acquitted him of cheating (Section 420) and forgery for cheating (Section 468) but maintained the conviction for forgery (Section 465) and using a forged document (Section 471).
Arguments
The counsel for the Revisionist argued that the complainant (PW 2) admitted in cross-examination that he did not know who committed the interpolation. It was further contended that the First Appellate Court had already discarded the handwriting expert’s evidence, leaving no proof that the overwriting was done by the applicant. The defence also pointed out that the document in question was seized from a witness (PW 6) and not from the applicant’s possession.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) supported the findings of the lower courts, urging the High Court to dismiss the revision for want of merits.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed that in a revision application, the court must test whether the impugned order is illegal, irregular, or perverse. Citing the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and Another (2012), the court noted that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should be exercised when findings are “grossly erroneous” or based on “no evidence.”
The High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution’s evidence:
- Authorship of Forgery: The court noted that the informant (PW 2) “candidly admitted that, he is unaware about who exactly carried out overwriting.”
- Handwriting Evidence: The court emphasized that the First Appellate Court had already discarded the handwriting expert’s report (Exhibit 138) because the expert was not examined. Without this, the court held, “the aspect of very forgery has come under shadow of doubt.”
- Chain of Custody: The court found it significant that the handwritten 7/12 extract was seized from PW 6, who ran a computerized service center, and not the applicant. The court observed:
“Unless there is proof to show that accused authored or tampered the 7/12 extract, charges of forgery cannot be brought home.” - Lack of Cheating: The court highlighted that the original landowner (PW 5) stated she had not been cheated, further weakening the prosecution’s narrative of a fraudulent scheme.
The High Court concluded that “mere encircling of a document without there being sufficient proof of it to be solely done by accused” was insufficient for conviction.
Decision
Finding that both lower courts failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective, the High Court allowed the revision.
“Resultantly… both learned Trial Court as learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and having erred, interference is called for,” the bench held.
The court quashed the conviction and acquitted Madhav Sangram Rajkundle of all charges, directing that any fine paid be refunded and his bonds be cancelled.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Madhav S/o Sangram Rajkundle (Rajkundal) vs. The State of Maharashtra
- Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 163 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
