Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 2011. Case: Janardhan Kashinath Pal Vs Harishchandra Ladu Naik, and others. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCriminal Revision Application No. 59 of 2011
CounselFor Applicant: S. G. Bhobe, Adv. and For Respondents: S. R. Rivonkar, Public Prosecutor
JudgesR. C. Chavan, J.
IssueIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 181
Citation2013 CriLJ 4082
Judgement DateJuly 09, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)


  1. This revision by original complainant is directed against the revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa allowing the revision preferred by the accused whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside the complaint filed by the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

  2. It was the applicant's case that the non-applicants accused persons as well as the applicant claim through one Shankar Pal. The applicant claims to be grandson of Shankar. The accused persons, suppressing existence of the applicant, made a declaration before the Notary Ex-Officio Sub- Registrar omitting to show that the applicant is one of the heirs of Shankar. This declaration was sought to be used by the accused Nos. 4 to 6 for applying for getting their names mutated in the properties. The applicant, therefore, filed complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant as well as two other witnesses including the Sub-Registrar and then proceeded to issue process for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. by his order dated 12/04/2007.

  3. Aggrieved thereby the accused persons preferred revision which came to be allowed by an impugned order.

  4. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant.

  5. Section 181 of I.P.C. provides that a person legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject to any Public Servant or other person authorised by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes to such Public servant or other person any statement which is false, is liable for punishment as prescribed in the said Section.

  6. In this case, there is nothing to show that the Notary Ex-officio Sub-Registrar was required to administer any oath or affirmation to the persons, who made the declaration excluding the applicant from the heirs of Shankar.

  7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted relying on entry No. 15 in Appendix 5 of Family Laws of Goa, Daman and Diu, Volume II that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT