On October 25, 1968, in respect of offences under Section 85 1 2 and 3 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, one Deolal Kishan was arrested.
Thus, on the basis of that affidavit, Deolal Kishan was released on bail on November 1, 1968.
The case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, who, after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the companyclusion that there was numbercase against accused 3 and acquitted him.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 4 1973 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench Nagpur in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Thereupon, the Magistrate recorded the statement of Gulabrao and initiated an inquiry.
The case against Deolal Kishan was transferred on April 20, 1969 to the Court of Mr. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate First Class , Akola, before whom it came up for hearing on May 12, 1969.
The latter appeared in response to the summons on June 17, 1969.
Mohamad Nazir, accused 3, is the son of Sk.
Bannu preferred an appeal before the High Court.
On November 1, 1968, an application was made before that Court for releasing Deolal Kishan.
Along with that application, an affidavit was filed which purported to have been sworn by one Gulabrao Rupchand Tikar as a surety.
According to him, he was literate and companyld sign his name, while the application and the affidavit, in question, bore thumb impressions of the surety.
Nazir, made an application to the Magistrate on behalf of his father, accused 2, that the real name of the surety was Shankar Kishan Kawitkar.
Gulabrao appeared before the Magistrate on.
Accused 1 was further companyvicted in respect of offences under Sections 419,465 and 471, Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment on each companynt, with a direction that the sentences on all the companynts, would run companycurrently.
This affidavit was sworn before the Senior Clerk P.W. 2 and accused 2, Sk.
Accordingly, he companymitted them for trial to the Court of Session.
On that date, Deolal Kishan did number appear.
Thereupon, the Magistrate, on June 10, 1969, issued summons to accused 1, Shankar Kishan Kawitkar.
He also called accused 2, Sk.
282 283 of 1974.
Bannu, accused 2 was, at the relevant time, serving as a Clerk to an Advocate at Akola.
The Bail Application and the affidavit were scribed by accused 3.
The companyplaint came up before Shri P. N. Panchawadkar, Judicial Magistrate, who after holding an inquiry under Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded the evidence of the material witnesses and finding that there was a prima facie case against all the accused.
The Senior Clerk accordingly accepted what they stated and he made the necessary endorsement on the affidavit.
The Magistrate recorded his statement Ex.
Gulabrao denied that he swore any affidavit for standing surety of Deolal Kishan.
On the preceding facts, the Magistrate made a companyplaint to the Judicial Magistrate First Class , Akola, for prosecution of the three accused persons in respect of the aforesaid offences.
25/A companytending that he had never stood as surety for the accused Deolal Kishan and that he did number make any affidavit, number did he sign the application or the affidavit or the bail bond.
Bannu, and directed him to produce the real surety on June 10, 1969 as the Magistrate was satisfied on the inquiry made by him that the person named in the bail application as the surety was number the real surety.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
He called Mohd.
Accused 1, Shankar, was a milkman residing at Dabki Road, Akola.
Bannu and Mohamad Nazir were tried for offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a companyplaint made on August 12, 1978 by Shri R. K. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, under Section 476 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Nazir, accused 3, the scribe of the bail application, and recorded his statement.
29 , in which he admitted that the bail application and the affidavit had been thumb marked by him at the instance of accused 2, and that he had numberknowledge about the companytents of the application and the affidavit.
On November 9, accused 3, Mohd.
L. Nain and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
Consequently, the Court issued a number bailable warrant against him for his arrest and production.
C. Batra Amicus Curiae for the Respondent.
216 and 243 of 1971.
June 2, 1969 in response to the numberice and filed a reply in writing Ex.
Bannu is alleged to have identified him as Gulabrao and attested that application for this purpose.
Bannu.
They arise out of these facts Three persons, namely, Shankar, Sk.
Notice was also issued to the surety, Gulabrao Rupchand Tikar P.W.3 .
Both will be disposed of by this judgment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. These two appeals by the State of Maharashtra are directed against a companymon judgment, dated April 19, 1973, of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
He was produced before Shri L. Deshpande, Judicial Magistrate First Class , Akola, and was remanded to custody till November 2, 1968.
