Interim Order 10

Order Details: Copy of Evidence
Pdf Text: C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 Exh. 243
P.W. No. 24 on S.A. :
Name : Vijay Chintaman Choure.
Age : 49 years.
Occupation : Sr. Police Inspector attached to EOW, Mumbai.
Residing at : Mumbai.
Examination-in-chief by Ld. A.P.P. Smt. P. S. Patil for the State :-
1. C.R.NO. 77/2018 of EOW was given to me for
investigation on 02.07.2020. I was working as Police Inspector at
that time. Informant was Gautam Budhrani while accused were
Amol Dhule and Nardas Ture. The offences involved were 420,
465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120(B) read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code. Informant had given work to accused Amol for
obtaining several NOCs from various authorities in respect of 353
acres of land at Vahal, Tal-Panvel, District- Raigad. He gave all the
NOCs to the informant except three forged NOCs.
2. One of that was a forged order in RTS Appeal NO.
245/2015 filed with Upper District Collector at Alibaug. A false
order was prepared in respect of this Appeal showing it to have
been allowed. This order was shown to be dated 28.10.2015. The
second forged NOC was from Central Railway. It was shown to be
dated 12.01.2016. The third forged NOC was from Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Alibaug, Raigad and it was shown to be
dated 06.06.2015. I can identify these forged orders and NOCs.
The forged order in RTS Appeal is filed at Exhibit-39 and 40.
Though no such order was passed by the said office, the accused
No.1 prepared this false order and gave it to accused No.2 to
-- 1 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 2 - Exh. 243
prepare its certified copy. The accused No.2 then kept this false
order on the record. The informant was going to pay the accused
No.1 in stagewise manner and he paid Rs.3.47 Crores to accused
No.1 after this order. Accused No.1 actually used Rs.28,22,500/-
for the order of change in the zone. Accused No.1 has used
Rs.3,18,77,500/- for his personal purposes. He gave false
documents to the informant and used this amount.
3. The earlier investigation was carried out by API Smt.
Hande. As she went on pregnancy leave, the further investigation
was handed over to me. During investigation I have recorded the
statement of Kamini Pramod Naik as per her say. I sent a reminder
to the hand writing expert for forwarding the opinion on the hand
writing. I thereafter collected the opinion of such handwriting
expert. I filed supplementary charge-sheet against Avikumar
Dhule and Nardas Ture.
4. It was found after the opinion of handwriting expert
that the date ‘28’ hand written in Exhibit-39 and 40 was written by
accused Avikumar Dhule. This hand written is at Q-1 and Q-16. A
true copy was prepared about this order. The signature at Q-20 at
Exhibit-40 was found to be that of accused Nardas Ture. It was
found that accused No.1 prepared the false order and accused
No.2 prepared the certified copy of the said false order and gave it
back to accused No.1. The opinion of the expert shows that it is
the signature of accused No.2. This opinion is at Exhibit-222. I
had collected this opinion.
-- 2 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 3- Exh. 243
5. During investigation I found that accused No.1
Avikumar Dhule prepared false orders and NOCs and accused No.2
helped him in preparation of same. It was found that accused
have committed offences under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468,
471, 472, 473, 120(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(Examination-in-chief deferred due to recess)
R. O. & A. C.
Sd/-
(Abhijit R. Solapure)
Addl. C. J. M., 47th Court,
Date :13.01.2026 Esplanade, Mumbai.
Further examination-in-chief resumed on oath by Ld. A.P.P. Smt. P.
S. Patil for the State :-
6. Now I am shown the document at Exhibit-140. It is the
forged NOC purportedly issued by the Conservator of Forest,
Alibaug dated 06.06.2015. Now I am shown the document at
Exhibit-42. It is the NOC of Central Railway. It was handed over
by the accused to the informant. Accused No.1 prepared forged
NOCs and handed them over to the informant and thereby cheated
him. Accused No.2 has helped him in the commission of this
offence. Accused No.1 has received amount of Rs.3.47 Crores and
cheated the informant. I found material and substance against the
accused in the investigation and hence I filed the charge-sheet. I
can identify the accused.
Examination in chief completed.
-- 3 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 4- Exh. 243
Cross examination by Adv. Vinod Kashid for accused No.1 :-
Question: The alleged order dated 28.10.2015 is an order and not
NOC?
Answer: I say that it is order-cum-NOC.
7. There is no document on record to show that it is order
-cum–NOC. I say that Exhibit – 140 is NOC and not opinion. The
laptop which was seized from the home of accused No.1 was not
started and verified by me. Accused No.1 never gave any statement
that he has prepared these alleged NOCs on his laptop and showed
his willngness to give the laptop. I did not find any document or
material showing the formats of NOCs and orders during the
course of my investigation. I never took statement of the informant
during my investigation asking him why there are no signatures on
the agreement between informant and accused No.1.
8. I have read the agreement between informant and
accused No.1. Now I am shown the copy of agreement with
Exhibit-30. There is no entry of payment of Rs.2 Crores as per
condition No.1. Witness volunteers that informant has paid
Rs.3.47 Crores. I cannot tell as to how many genuine NOCs were
given by accused No.1 to informant. I never inquired with the
informant as to how many NOCs he has got. I did not ask
informant as to how many NOCs he required. I cannot tell whether
NOC of Airport was given. I have not seen other NOCs except
these forged NOCs. I have not seen the register at Exhibit-81.
-- 4 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 5 - Exh. 243
9. It is true to say that accused No.1 was to get minimum
Rs.50 Lakhs for each NOC he will give. I never showed this
agreement to informant and did not verify which NOC he had got
and when. I do not know whether the accused No.1 had given
genuine 10 to 15 NOCs to informant. It is true to say that there is
no entry of Rs.50 Lakhs or 2 Crores in the Bank statement of
accused No.1. It is not true to say that informant was cheating
accused No.1 since beginning by not paying his amount.
10. I say that there is a reference in the said agreement
whereby accused No.1 is entitled to file Appeal before the
Collector, Alibaug. There is no witness who had given a statement
to me that he/she had seen accused No.1 in the office of
Additional Collector. There is no witness who had given a
statement to me that he/she had seen accused No.1 in the office of
Conservator of Forest and Central Railway.
Question: You did not find anything in the search of accused No.1,
his house and office?
Answer: I did not conduct any such search. But the laptop has
been sent to Forensic Laboratory.
I cannot tell whether there is no material in investigation to show
that there are drafts or something suggesting such NOCs or orders
in the seized laptop.
11. There is no document in my investigation to show that
these three forged NOCs were handed over by the accused No.1 to
informant showing their exact date and payment of amount. There
-- 5 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 6- Exh. 243
is no document in my investigation to show that these three forged
NOCs were handed over by accused No.1 to informant from his
personal custody, house and office.
12. There is no reference in the correspondence by earlier
Investigating Officer or by me to the office of Additional Collector,
Conservator of Forest and Central Railway whereby we asked them
as to who forged the NOCs and order and whether they have any
suspicion on any one. I did not inquire with the office of Additional
Collector, Conservator of Forest and Central Railway whether they
have filed any report about forged NOCs from their side. I did not
take specimen signatures of the concerned Officers of Additional
Collector, Conservator of Forest and Central Railway whose
signatures are purportedly made on these forged NOCs.
Question: The report of the informant and his supplementary
statements do not refer to change in the date of the order of
Additional Collector?
Answer: He stated that he was given forged NOCs.
13. I never demanded with the informant that I want the
original of the forged certified copy. I did not ask the informant to
give the original certified copy of Exhibit-40 (Colour xerox of
certified true copy). I did not find any copy of this Exhibit-40 in
the custody of accused No.1 during my investigation. I did not
take the specimen signature, hand writing and figures of the
informant in my investigation. It is not true to say that the
specimen signatures of accused were not taken in the presence of
-- 6 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 7 - Exh. 243
panch witnesses and in the panchanama. It is true to say that
opinion cannot be given on the basis of xerox copy.
14. It is true to say that there is no statement either of
accused No.1 or of accused No.2 stating that accused NO.1
prepared the forged NOCs and handed over them to accused NO.2,
who in turn gave the certified copy to accused No.1. it is true to
say that there is no witness stating that the forged order was kept
on record and it was taken by accused No.2 and prepared a
certified copy in presence of such witness. There is no statement
of accused No.1 or 2 to show that accused No.1 paid certain sum
to accused No.2 to prepare certified copy of the forged order. I
have not taken the CDR of the calls made either by accused No.1
or by accused No.2. There is no investigation to show the place
where accused No.1 and 2 met with each other and conspired to
commit this offence.
15. It is not true to say that informant himself had forged
the order and two NOCs to show the same to his partners and to
take money from them. It is not true to say that accused No.1
never handed over such three documents to informant. It is not
true to say that I came to know that the concerned Department
had lodged report against the informant once it came to know
about the forgery of its order. It is not true to say that I have
intentionally withheld this information in the investigation. It is
not true to say that I was informed that one offence of forgery and
cheating was already registered with Vashi Police Station in respect
-- 7 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 8- Exh. 243
of the same land. It is not true to say that informant has filed
false report against accused to avoid payment of his money and I
have actively assisted him. It is not true to say that I have assisted
the informant to save him from the insistence of payment by his
partners, once they come to know about forgery. It is not true to
say that though I knew that informant owes money to accused
No.1, I intentionally carried out false investigation and filed false
charge-sheet. It is not true to say that though I knew that the
informant has forged these orders and NOC, I intentionally did not
take the original copies from him and did not take his specimen
signature and figure. It is not true to say that accused No.1 and 2
are falsely implicated in the present crime.
Cross-examination by Advocate S.R. Wani for accused No.2
(Adopted the earlier cross-examination.)
16. I did not receive any independent reasoning from the
handwriting expert except his opinion. I did not come across any
document which will show that the concerned office of Additional
Collector had lodged report against informant and three others in
relation to the forgery and cheating of the same order.
Question: The offence took place at Alibaug and the office of
Additional Collector including the disputed land is in Raigad
District?
Answer: The office of informant is in Mumbai and payment of
amount has taken place in Mumbai.
It is not true to say that as earlier report was forwarded on
01.02.2018 to Superintendent of Police, Raigad, Alibaug, the Cuffe
-- 8 of 9 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 9 - Exh. 243
Parade Police Station or EOW, Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the
investigation.
Question: You did not take prior sanction either for investigation,
arrest or for filing charge-sheet against accused No.2 ?
Answer: I say that the concerned office was informed before
arresting accused No.2. He was already retired at the time of filing
the charge-sheet.
17. It is not true to say that I have not recorded the
statements of colleagues of accused No.2. I did not show the
handwriting of accused No.2 to anyone in his Department. I did
not take any statement of any witness to show that the signature
or handwriting on the copy is that of accused No.2. It is not true
to say that I did not conduct any investigation and merely filed
charge-sheet. It is not true to say that there was no evidence
against accused No.2 and still I filed charge-sheet against accused
No.2. It is not true to say that accused No.1 did not give any
document to accused No.2 to certify and he did not give any
certified copy thereof.
Cross-Examination is completed
No Re-examination.
R. O. & A. C.
Sd/-
(Abhijit R. Solapure)
Addl. C. J. M., 47th Court,
Date :13.01.2026 Esplanade, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 9 --