1 22-revn-124-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 124 OF 2025 Bharat Kisan Bhagat Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Karanja, Dist. Washim and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Mirza Tabish Tahseen Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. R.V.Sharma, APP for the respondent/State. Ms. Anuprita S. Mishrikotkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. By the present revision application, the applicant challenges the order dated 13.03.2025 plassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2013 and the judgment and order dated passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.2), Karanja in Regular Criminal Case No. 101 of 2008 dated 31.08.2012 by acquitting the accused of the offence punisahble under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. SKNair 2 22-revn-124-25.odt 2. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court recorded the findings that the prosecution has failed to bring on record the material witnesses and also failed to record the evidence of the complainant Bhagat and complainant i.e. Investigating Officer, therefore, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court have also wrongly recorded that enough ample opportunity was granted to the prosecution to lead the evidence of the Investigation Officer as well as the complainant. However, no such efforts were taken by the prosecution despite sufficient opportunity was granted. Learned Appellate Court had wrongly dismissed the appeal. 3. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it was for the prosecution to take appropriate steps and make an application for issuance of summons and the learned Appellate Court could have very well issued summons, however, dismissed the appeal. In the absence of any material things to bring on record to show that the summons were duly served to the complainant and other witnesses, such SKNair 3 22-revn-124-25.odt findings could not have been recorded by both the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, which had resulted in causing serious miscarriage of justice to the complainant herein. The first informant had diligently filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, thereby challenging the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court have also failed to take into consideration that failure on the part of the prosecutor to call the complainant for examining, which resulted in serious prejudice to the right of the applicant/complainant who had filed the First Information Report on the ground that accused persons have deliberately put the signature of the complainant on the relinquishment deed. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are misconceived, contrary to the material on record, and perverse in law and on facts, and are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Ms. Anuprita S. Mishrikotkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant nos. 3 and 4 strongly opposes the present application on the ground that both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have granted ample opportunity to the prosecution to examine witnesses for establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the remaining witnesses SKNair 4 22-revn-124-25.odt including material witnesses i.e. complainant and Investigating Officer were not examined for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the learned trial Court has closed the side of the prosecution after giving ample opportunity to the prosecution. Prosecution thereafter did not any take care to file any appropriate application or call relevant witnesses. The learned trial Court was left with no other option but to pass the order on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. Two witnesses examined by the prosecution were not found sufficient enough to convict the appellant and thus, after recording satisfactory reasons, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and liable to be maintained and the appeal filed by the complainant herein also do not find any favour with the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as Appellate Court has also gone in detailed the stages of the trial and found that despite of ample opportunity was given to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to examine material witnesses and therefore dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant. 5. I have gone through the judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim as well as SKNair 5 22-revn-124-25.odt the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.2), Karanja in Regular Criminal Case No. 101 of 2008. 6. The perusal of both the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court shows that the charge came to be framed on 04.06.2010 and the evidence of P.W.1 Gajanan Sirsekar at Exhibit 62 was recorded on 15.07.2010 and was completed 15.01.2011. The evidence of P.W.2 Devendra Kawade at Exhibit 76 was also recorded on 16.07.2011. The prosecution had thereafter failed to examine any single witness from the side of the prosecution. The learned trial Court had therefore passed an order dated 13.10.2011, thereby granted last opportunity to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. The record does not show any efforts were taken by the prosecution to examine any of the witnesses. The prosecution side was thereafter closed by the Appellate Court after a period of one year on 04.04.2012. Thus, the record shows that the despite of giving enough opportunity to the prosecution to secure the presence of other witnesses, the prosecution has failed to examine the relevant witnesses i.e. complainant himself Bharat Bhagat and the Investigating Officer or the relevant witnesses. In SKNair 6 22-revn-124-25.odt the absence of such material witnesses being examined, the learned trial Court was left with the testimony of only two witnesses i.e. P.W.No.1 Gajanan and P.W.No.2 Devendra. Gajanan P.W.No.1 was witness to the relinquishment deed who had specifically deposed that he went to the Sub-Registrar Officer along with Pandit, Suresh and mother and put the signature on the stamp paper and he identified the photograph of accused Digambar against the name of Bharat Bhagat. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he do not know personally Pandit Bhagat and Meerabai Bhagat. He further admitted in the cross- examination that he merely signed the document at Exhibit 72 in good faith as a witness and in cross-examination it reveals that their photographs and signatures were obtained one by one inside the office. Hence, the possibility of exactly identifying the signature of such witness was found not to be probable by the learned trial Court. In so far as the prosecution witness P.W.No.2 Devendra is concerned, the said witness was panch to the seizure memo of the stamp paper. The said stamp was seized from the possession of Vishnupant, the stamp vendor and the relinquishment deed from the accused Suresh Bhagat. The sample of the thumb impression was also taken in the presence of the P.W.2 Devendra. SKNair 7 22-revn-124-25.odt Apart from the aforesaid two witnesses, prosecution appears to have failed to examine any other witness. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Shri Mirza that the complainant did not receive any summons does not appear to be probable as both the learned lower Courts after going through the record has specifically made observations that despite ample opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to record the evidence of the material witnesses necessary for establishing the prosecution case beyond doubt. I do not find any error committed by both the learned Lower Courts below in arriving at the conclusion and the inference is drawn. 7. It is almost a well settled principle of law that the scope of interference by a Revisional Court in the revision against an order of acquittal is very narrow. Even if two views are possible, the view taken by the learned lower Courts, cannot be set aside only on the ground that there is another view possible. 8. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the conduct of the prosecution during the trial, particularly its failure to examine the material witnesses, namely, the complainant and the Investigating SKNair 8 22-revn-124-25.odt Officer, I do not see any error illegality or perversity committed by both the learned lower Courts. The applicant has failed to make out any case for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 11:00:26