Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Madhav Meghaji Nigave on 2 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:16798
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
Madhav Meghaji Nivage
Age : 48 years, Occupation Service,
R/o : Balepeer, Nagar Road,
Beed, Taluka and District Beed. ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2004
Madhav s/o Meghaji Nivage
Aged : 45 Years, Occ. Service as
Police Head Constable,
Police Station Shirsala,
Taluka Parali-Vaijnath, District Beed,
R/o Balepeer, Beed. ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Beed [City],
Beed. ... Respondent
.....
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Appellant-State in Criminal Appeal
No. 584 of 2004 and the Respondent in Criminal Revision Application
No. 183 of 2004.
Ms. Rekha Choudhari and Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocates for the
Respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2004 and the Applicant in
Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004.
.....
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 18.06.2025
Pronounced on : 02.07.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a State Appeal, challenging the judgment and order
dated 17.04.2004 passed by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2003, arising out of the
judgment and order dated 21.02.2003 passed by learned 5 th J.M.F.C.,
Beed in R.C.C. No. 418 of 1997.
On the other hand, the accused also preferred Criminal
Revision Application against the same judgment and order
challenging his conviction under Section 471 of the IPC.
Hence, both the proceedings are taken up for hearing and
decided together by this common judgment.
2. Learned APP pointed out that charge was framed against
present respondent-convict for commission of offence under Sections
199, 200, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the premise that respondent-
convict submitted forged and fabricated caste certificate for gaining
employment as a Constable in Police Department. Subsequently, on
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-3-
complaint and inquiry it was revealed that, the very caste certificate
tendered by the respondent-convict was forged. However, same was
deliberately and dishonestly tendered to procure employment.
Therefore, on report of the Superintendent working in the S.P. Office,
Beed, complaint was lodged. Investigation was carried out and finally,
the respondent-convict was chargesheeted vide R.C.C. No. 418 of
1997. That, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,
learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to convict the respondent for offence
under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and acquitted him from other
charges.
3. Learned APP further pointed out that against said judgment
and order of conviction, respondent-convict preferred appeal before
learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed vide Criminal
Appeal No. 20 of 2003. That, in the same, learned 2nd Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the conviction
under Section 468 IPC and only held respondent-accused guilty of
offence under Section 471 IPC.
4. Learned APP further submitted that respondent had played
fraud on the Government. He had intentionally, dishonestly and
knowingly tendered forged, fabricated and manufactured caste
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-4-
certificate claiming himself to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
[ST]. That, in fact he was from Maratha community. A detail inquiry
with Collector Officer revealed that fabricated and forged document
was procured only to gain employment. Learned APP submits that in
fact, such act of the respondent amounts to depriving the real and
worthy, suitable candidate from ST category from gaining
employment. Therefore, along with commission of offence under
Section 471, learned First Appellate Court ought to have held
respondent guilty under Section 468 IPC also. Even acquittal of
respondent by learned J.M.F.C. from charge under Section 420 IPC
was unwarranted, more particularly as there was use of caste
certificate with dishonest intention of cheating the Government.
Therefore, learned APP questions the judgment passed by learned
J.M.F.C. as well as learned 2 nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, and
urges to allow the appeal for the grounds spelt out in appeal memo.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-original accused, who has
also preferred Criminal Revision Application, supports the acquittal at
the hands of learned J.M.F.C. from charge under Sections 420, 199
and 200 of IPC, as well as acquittal by learned Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge from offence under Sections 468 IPC. Learned counsel
questions the conviction awarded under Section 471 IPC on the
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-5-
ground that, the essential ingredients for the same are not met. That,
there was no legally acceptable evidence in support of charge under
Section 471 IPC. Therefore, he finds fault in the manner of
appreciation of evidence by both, the learned trial Judge as well as
the learned first appellate court. In the alternative, learned counsel
for respondent-revisionist would submit that, if at all the Court is
upholding the judgment of the first appellate court, then, the
respondent-revisionist be extended benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act. In support of such contention, learned counsel seeks
reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P.
v. Ranjit Singh 1999 AIR SC 1201, Vilas Gunda Shirolkar v. State of
Maharashtra 2024(1) BomCR (Cri) 435 : 2023 ALL MR(Cri) 2505
and Rajaram Nago Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
[Cri.WP 1489 of 2022 decided by this Court at Aurangabad on
29.08.2023].
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined in all 10
witnesses. Their role and status and their evidence can be
summarized as under :
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-6-PW1 Informant Sayyed Rahematullah was the Superintendent at
S.P. Office Beed. His evidence at Exhibit 17/C is as under :
1. Since 1.1.1994 I am office Supdt. in S.P. office Beed. On
2.3.1994 S.P. Beed ordered me to lodge report against
Madhav Meghaji Nivage. I know Madhav Meghaji Nivage.
Accused before the Court is the same. He was appointed on
17.10.1978 as Police Constable. On the basis of his caste
certificate. His caste is considered to be Scheduled Tribe as
Mahadeo Koli.
2. On 27.12.1998 one unnamed application received at
S.P. office Beed. It was alleged in that application that accused
is by caste Maratha. However, he obtained caste certificate as
Mahadeo Koli and got service. On the basis of that application,
report of Nanded S.P. was called. Now, unnamed application
shown to me same. It is at Exh.18/C. The S.P. Nanded made
enquiry and on 4.1.1990 submitted the report to S.P. Beed. Its
xerox copy is on record. The S. P. Nanded have mentioned in
the report that the relatives of the accused are of Maratha
caste. His real brother also from Maratha Caste and accused
also from Maratha State.
3. The collector Nanded has also submitted his report on
7.3.1991 that the caste certificate obtained by accused is
illegal. Now, report shown to me is the same. It bears
signature of Collector, Nanded. The contents therein are true
and correct. It is at Exh. 19/C. As per the order of S.P. Beed on
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-7-
10.3.1994 I lodged the report. Now, report shown to me is the
same. It bears my signature. The contents therein are true and
correct. It is at Exh. 20/C.
PW2 Madhav Mariba Jadhav, at Exhibit at 24/C, deposed as under :
I was on duty as a Talathi of Sajja Biloli since 1.8.1990.
I know the father of accused and his sons Shriram, Laxman
and Madhav (accused). The accused has agriculture land at
Biloli. The accused belong to Maratha Caste. The certificate
which I have issued on 5/6/1997 is true. The certificate now
shown to me is the same. It’s contents are true and correct. It
bears my signature. It is at Ex. 24.
PW3 Pandurang Pawade, Police Patil gave evidence at Exhibit 25/C
as under :
I am working as a Police Patil at Biloli since 1988. I
know Meghaji Nivage and his sons. Shriram, Madhav, Laxman
etc. all r/o Biloli. I knew the accused before Court. The
accused belong to Maratha caste. It is true to say that I have
issued a certificate on 5.6.1997. Certificate now shown to me
is the same. Its contents are true and correct. It bears my
signature. It is at Exh. 25/1. There are no people in my village
which is of from Mahadeo Koli caste and as a surname Nivage.
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-8-PW4 Md. Abdul Javed, resident of same village, deposed as under :
I know the accused. He belongs to my city. It is true to
say that I was the council of Ward No. 14in the year 1997. The
accused is resident of my ward. I know the accused, his
brother and his parents. The accused is serving as police.
Accused belongs to Maratha caste. Now the certificate dated
5.6.1997 shown to me is the same. It bears my signature. Its
contents are true and correct. It is at Exh.26/1.
PW5 Gangaram Shinde deposed at Exhibit 27/C as under :
I am belonging to Maratha caste. Meghaji Nivage, Sonba
Nivage and accused Madhav are my relations. I know to them.
Accused belong to Maratha caste. The accused is my brother-
in-law. I have no knowledge whether the people belong to
Mahadeo Koli here a surname as a Nivage or not.
This witness was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-
examination by learned APPPW6 Ankush Bhosle, Police Head Constable posted at Beed City
Police Station, gave evidence at Exhibit 28/C as under :
On 10.3.1994 I was working at Beed City Police Station
as P.S.O. Complainant Sayyed Rahematullah had filed a
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-9-complaint and registered the same at crime No.87/94. On the
order of P.I. & handed over investigation to P.S.I. Dhedkar.
The complaint filed by Rahematullah is now shown to me is
same. It is at Exh. 20.
PW7 Ravindra Dhedkar, who was the Investigation Officer, gave
following evidence at Exhibit 29/C :
On 10.3.1994 I was at Beed City Police Station. Station
in-charge registered the crime no. 87/94 & handed over
investigation to me. The crime was registered against Head
Constable Madhav Nivage. The complaint was annexed with
all documents. The crime was registered after departmental
enquiry. Shri Sayyed Rahematullah had filed the case against
the accused. Thereafter P. J. Wadje took over investigation
from me to him. In this crime, accused obtained anticipatory
bail. I can identify the accused if seen. Accused is present in
the court today.
PW8 Tatyasaheb Bhojne, P.I. at Ambajogai Police Station, is another
Investigating Officer, who in his evidence at Exhibit 30/C
deposed about recording statements of relatives of accused,
Sarpancha of village and Head Master of Zilla Parishad High
School, about collecting caste certificate from school and after
completion of investigation, submitting charge sheet against
the accused.
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-10-PW9 Eknath Landge, who was Assistant Teacher at Zilla Parishad
Lahan High School at Ardhpur, District Nanded, deposed at
Exhibit 37 as under :
I was at Biloli from 1984 to 2001 as Asstt. Teacher. So
also I was in-charge Head Master for some period. Police
recorded my statement. As per that, I saw the record of the
school in respect of admission certificate of one Madhav
Meghaji Nivage. I observed in that certificate the caste as
Maratha. At that time S. R. Gangamwar was Head Master. The
certificate in respect of admission issued by the said Head
Master is report. The extract now shown to me is the same,
which was issued by Head Master Gangamwar. I know his
signature, as I was Assistant teacher under him and worked
under him.
PW10 Nagnath Shinde, Head Master at Biloli, deposed at Exh. 41 as
under :
I have brought register in respect of transfer and
admission register pertaining no. 147/529. This entry is in the
name of Bilolikar Madhav Meghaji. This certificate is similar
with the copy in the present case- There is “Maratha” caste
mentioned in the register. The entries in the said register and
the certificate issued by school authority bears same contents.
Now the certificate is shown to me is the same. It is at Exh. 42.
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-11-
7. After analyzing the evidence of 10 witnesses and studying the
documentary evidence, learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to accept the
case of prosecution, but only as regards the offence under Sections
468 and 471 of IPC, and acquitted the respondent from other charges
i.e. under Sections 199, 200 and 420 of IPC. The matter was taken up
to the next level by none other than present respondent/revisionist,
by questioning the judgment passed by learned J.M.F.C. by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2002 and the first appellate court was
pleased to acquit the respondent from charge under Section 468 IPC,
but upheld the conviction for charge under Section 471 IPC vide
judgment dated 17.04.2004, which is now impugned herein by both,
the State in appeal as well as the respondent-accused by filing
Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004.
8. Undertook the exercise of re-appreciation and re-analysis of the
entire evidence, and it is thereupon emerging that accused does not
have distinct caste certificate issued by competent authority certifying
him to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli caste, and inquiry conducted
with Revenue authorities as well as police department demonstrated
that, he rather belongs to Maratha caste. However, the very act of
committing forgery or manufacturing certificate has not been proved
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-12-by the prosecution and therefore both, learned trial court as well as
learned first appellate court, in the considered opinion of this Court,
have not committed any patent error or perversity in acquitting the
accused from rest of the charges. Guilt of the accused is concurrently
held established for offence under Section 471 of IPC.
9. It is settled law that, to bring home the charge under Section
471 IPC, prosecution is expected to fulfill availability of key
ingredients like, document or electronic record to be forged; secondly,
it must be shown that accused had used the said document posing
itself to be genuine; and thirdly, accused himself knows or he must
have reasons to believe that the document which he is tendering or he
is possessing and put to use, is in fact manufactured and forged one.
He must have deliberately used it to show that it is genuine. His
knowledge and reason to believe are co-related and prosecution must
prove that, at the time of putting the document to use, he carried
culpability in doing so and must have fraudulently and dishonestly
used the same.
10. Here, at the time of securing employment, accused had put to
use and tendered document Exhibit 21. On receipt of anonymous
complaint, document was sent for verification with the authorities
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-13-
who were authorized to issued caste certificate. On receipt of report
from such authority about not issuing any caste certificate in favour of
present respondent/revisionist, police authorities have undertaken the
step of lodging report. Learned counsel for respondent would submit
that there is no mens rea in doing the above act and secondly,
authorities with whom inquiry was conducted, are not examined and
as such, the very basis or foundational facts are not proved here, and
so he questions the implication as well as guilt recorded under
Section 471 IPC.
11. This Court is not convinced with the above submissions for the
simple reason that, here, there is no denial that the document has
been tendered by the respondent/revisionist while seeking
employment. He has not disowned and denied its use. By use of
certificate of caste to which he never belonged, a seat of a deserving
candidate has been usurped and forged, false document is tendered.
He has thereby deprived a meritorious deserving candidate from a
particular category and therefore, here, in the light of above material,
this Court also agrees with the findings of both, learned trial court as
well as the first appellate court, that the ingredients for attracting
Section 471 IPC are indeed available in the prosecution evidence.
Accused has not denied production of the forged document and had
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-14-
put it to use. Resultantly, required ingredients for attracting Section
471 IPC being available, even this Court does not hesitate in agreeing
with the findings reached at by both, learned trial court as well as
first appellate court.
12. Learned counsel for respondent-accused would submit that
considering the offence, the judgment of conviction to be dated
21.02.2003 i.e. more than two decades back, and that appellant
having now attained the age of 65 years, he seeks benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act. However, this Court is not impressed with above
request for the same reason that, there is use of forged document,
depriving a deserving suitable candidate from a particular caste, to
gain employment and therefore such case does not deserve extension
of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, considering the
long tenure undergone with a sword of conviction hanging over the
head, sentence awarded by learned first appellate court for the period
of two years is reduced to three months. Hence, the following order is
passed :
ORDER
I. Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2004 is hereby dismissed.
II. Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2004 is partly allowed.
CriAppeal-584-2004+
-15-III. The conviction awarded to the revision applicant Madhav s/o
Meghaji Nivage by learned 5th J.M.F.C. Beed in R.C.C. No. 418 of
1997 under Section 471 of IPC on 21.02.2003 and confirmed by
learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal
Appeal No. 20 of 2003 by judgment and order dated 17.04.2004
is hereby maintained.
HOWEVER
IV. The sentence is reduced and instead of two years, the appellant
is hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)
months for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.
V. There shall be no change in the fine amount as well as the
default sentence.
VI. Rest of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2004
passed by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2003 is kept intact.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre