THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAKASH BABULAL BISAVA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Prakash Babulal Bisava
Click here to view full judgement.
A. M. DHAVALE, J. -
(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule in RCC 201/1991 on
31.08.2001, whereby Vedu Deore (A1) was convicted u/s 419 IPC , 205 IPC and 467 IPC and accused nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. In Cri. Appeal No. 44/2001, the State seeks conviction of accused nos. 2 and
3 for offences u/s 419, 205, 467 r/w 34 of IPC . In Cri. Appeal No. 47/2002, the State seeks enhancement of sentence of imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, SI for 15 days for
offence u/s 419 of IPC , SI for one month and fine of Rs. 200/-, in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days u/s 205 of IPC and
SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer SI
for 10 days u/s 467 of IPC .
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding these appeals may be stated as under :
On 26.07.1991, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 11, Dhule, PW1-Dilip Bhuyarkar lodged written FIR at City Police Station, Dhule. In fact it was an order passed in Summary Criminal Case No. 75/91 which was registered as Crime No. 280/91, u/s 416, 205, 419 r/w 34 of IPC . As per FIR, PW1-Bhuyarkar was conducting a criminal case under Prevention of Gambling Act against one Ramesh Tukaram Borse. When he was recording evidence of Police Constable - Najim Shaikh-PW6, he told that the accused in the witness box was not Ramesh Borse but his name was Vedu Deore (A1). Mr Bhuyarkar made inquiry with said accused and he twice disclosed his name as Ramesh Tukaram Borse with address as Galli No. 5, Dhule. But later he admitted that his name was Vedu Damu Deore. That time, accused no. 3 - advocate by name Shri. R. B. Gujar representing Ramesh Borse was present there and he had earlier filed Vakalatnama. The evidence recording had begun on that day at 4:30 pm. After the charge was framed u/s 12 A of the Bombay Gambling Act on the same day in presence of advocate R. B. Gujar, the charge was explained to accused no. 1 - Vedu Deore (A1) and he pleaded not guilty. He signed the statement of the accused. That time, advocate R. B. Gujar did not tell the court that he was not accused Ramesh Tukaram Borse but a different person. When PW1-Bhuyarkar again made inquiry, the accused No. 1 Vedu present there told that his employer Prakash Bisava (A2) had told him to appear on behalf of Ramesh Tukaram Borse. The original accused was absent and Vedu Damu Deore impersonated himself as accused Ramesh Borse.
(3.) On the basis of the said FIR, the investigation was carried out. The statements of material witnesses were recorded. Material
documents were also seized. After completion of investigation, the
charge-sheet was submitted in the court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.