Interim Order 9

Order Details: Copy of Evidence
Pdf Text: C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 20 - Exh.233
P.W. No. 23 resumed on S.A. :
Name : Archana Shrirang Hande.
Further cross-examination by Advocate Vinod Kashid for accused
No.1 after recess.
34. It is true to say that I have not recorded statement of
any witness who stated that accused No.1 had been to the office of
Forest. It is true to say that accused No.1 had never filed any
application to the office of Forest seeking any such opinion. I did
not inquire with the office of Forest whether such opinions are
directly forwarded to the concerned office which had called for
such opinion.
Question: Mr. Budhrani had asked accused No.1 only to take NOCs
required for the said land and he was not given power to go in
litigation?
Answer: I say that as per the agreement accused No.1 was to
comply with all the things which were required for N.A. purposes
of the land and it includes everything.
The opinion is not a NOC. It is true to say that accused had not
filed any application for certified copy with the Forest Department.
Question: Whether the receipt dated 28.10.2015 at Exhibit-82
makes a reference that by such receipt the certified copy of the
order dated 28.10.2015 was issued to accused No.1?
Answer: There is no reference. All the receipts do not have any
reference.
Question: You did not receive any application whereby accused
No.1 had sought the certified copy of order dated 28.10.2015?
Answer: I did not receive, as it is missing from the said office.
-- 1 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 21 - Exh.233
35. I do not know the procedure adopted by the office of
District Collector, Alibaug in receiving application for certified
copies and forwarding them. I did not personally verify the
registers of the Additional Collector office in respect of this
particular application. Witness volunteers that I had issued such
letter for verification. It is not true to say that no any officer from
the said office of Additional Collector has stated that such
application was not received by said office. I did not demand
verification of record with the office of Additional Collector.
36. The original forged order dated 28.10.2015 in RTS
Appeal No. 245/2015 was handed over by informant to me. I had
inquired with the office of Collector whether the original copy is
being handed over to anyone. It is not true to say that the
concerned from the office of the Collector informed me that such
original is given to parties. I did not send the actual original order
passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal No.245/2015 to
compare it with the forged order to the handwriting expert. I had
sent the forged order and also its colour xerox to the handwriting
expert seeking his opinion.
Question: You had sent the original forged order. Whether you sent
the certified copy of the original forged order to the handwriting
expert for comparison?
Answer: I say that I had sent a colour xerox.
-- 2 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 22 - Exh.233
37. I do not know whether opinion cannot be given on the
basis of colour xerox copy. I had asked the informant about the
certified copy of the original forged order, which he stated that he
does not have. He never handed over such certified copy till filing
of the charge-sheet. It is true to say that none of the officers of
Additional Collector and Forest Department gave a statement to
me that the accused No.1 had stolen the stamps and had prepared
forged order. I did not find anything which will show that the
accused was having custody of format of orders and stamps. The
laptop was sent to Forensic Expert earlier and I had no occasion to
verify it. There is no entry of the forged documents in the register
which was seized from the house of present accused No.1. I did
not find any incriminating thing in the house search of accused
No.1.
38. It is not true to say that I did not find any incriminating
material against accused No.1 during the whole investigation. I
did not find any incriminating material in the office search and
house search of accused No.1. I did not take the specimen
signatures of informant during investigation. I do not know
whether Mr. Pravin Shinde, the then Additional Collector has
committed suicide. I did not record statements of any officers of
Railway Department. It is true to say that I did not find any
incriminating material in the custody of accused No.1 in relation to
Railway Department. It is true to say that the register seized from
the accused No.1 has entry dated 07.08.2017 at Serial No.40 and
it is in respect of original NOC. I did not show this original
-- 3 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 23 - Exh.233
register (Exhibit-81) to informant and did not get the entries
therein verified from him. It is true to say that nobody from the
office of Additional Collector Alibaug, Conservator of Forest
Alibaug and Central Railway gave a statement to me that accused
No.1 had forged the NOC and order.
39. I do not know whether accused No.1 had handed over
about 15 to 16 NOCs to informant and had taken Rs.3.5 Crores
from him. I do not know informant was to pay balance of Rs.16 to
17 Crores. I did not investigate in relation to NOCs handed over
by the accused No.1 to informant.
40. I know about Devishakti and Nisha Real Estate of
informant, but I do not know about Devi Prime. I do not know
whether there were other partners in Devishakti and Nisha Real
Estate. I do not know whether informant has taken money from
other partners by showing these NOCs. I do not know whether
Atul Rajkumar Agarwal one of the partner of informant had lodged
report of C.R.No.I-168/2017 with Vashi Police Station against the
informant for the forgery of NOC and order and cheating
pertaining to same land.
41. It is true to say that I did not investigate and inquire
with the partners of informant. It is not true to say that I knew
about this registered crime during investigation. It is not true to
say that with an intention to save informant Budhrani, I have filed
-- 4 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 24 - Exh.233
false charge-sheet against accused No.1. It is not true to say that I
have intentionally withheld the information of the crime registere
against the informant while filing the charge-sheet. It is not true
to say that I have prepared a false charge-sheet to save the
informant from payment of remaining amount to the accused No.1
and to save him from penal consequences. It is not true to say that
I have filed false charge-sheet so as to enable the informant to
avoid to pay the other partners of his Firm.
42. Now I am shown the supplementary statement of the
informant. This informant never stated that the signature of
Additional Collector Mr. Pravin Shinde and the stamp on the order
are fake. The informant never stated that the accused No.1 wrote
a letter to him and asked him not to interfere in his work. Now I
am shown the statement of witness Ganesh Dilip Konde. He never
stated that informant Budhrani had given him the liasoning work.
He never stated that all documents are forged documents. He
never handed over any original document to me during the
recording of his statement.
43. It is not true to say that I have carried out a false
investigation against accused No.1. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false.
-- 5 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 25 - Exh.233
Cross-examination by Advocate S.R.Wani for accused No.2
(Adopted the earlier cross-examination)
Question: Did you come to know that the alleged offence took
place within the jurisdiction at Alibaug and whether you informed
it to your Senior?
Answer: The offence started in Mumbai.
44. The FIR and first charge-sheet does not contain the
name of accused No.2. I do not remember whether I had filed
independent application under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for
further investigation against accused No.2. Witness volunteers
that such request was made in the charge-sheet itself. It is not true
to say that the alleged incriminating material against accused No.2
was already available with me before filing the first charge-sheet.
I have not taken sanction before the investigation against accused
No.2. I had recorded the statement of Kirti Mhatre who had stated
about the procedure of application for certified copy in her
Department. I did not record statement of any person explaining
the whole procedure of all office of District Collector.
Question: There are many subordinate employees under the
authority of Head of Record Department?
Answer: I say that there was only one peon.
45. I have not recorded statement of those employees, who
were working with accused No.2 at the relevant time. I have not
collected CDR of accused Nos. 1 and 2.
-- 6 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 26 - Exh.233
Question: Did you find any material to show that accused No.1
and 2 had collectively carried out the alleged offence?
Answer: I say that all the available applications for certified copies
and other documents and stamps show they have done it
collectively.
It is not true to say that I have carried out false investigation
against accused No.2.
Cross-examination is completed
No Re-examination
R. O. & A. C.
Sd/-
(Abhijit R. Solapure)
Addl. C. J. M., 47th Court,
Date : 06.01.2026 Esplanade, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 14 - Exh.233
P.W. No. 23 resumed on S.A. :
Name : Archana Shrirang Hande.
Cross-examination by Advocate Vinod Kashid for accused No.1
25. I do not know whether the other partners and
companies of informant Gautam Budhrani were also involved in
relation to the land in dispute. I had inquired with Mr. Budhrani
about the said land. I did not inquire with Mr. Budhrani from
where he arranged the finance for purchasing the said land. I did
not inquire with Mr. Budhrani about an Appeal before Sub-
Divisional Officer before filing the Appeal No. 245/2015 before the
Additional Collector. I do know that the Appeals before
Additional Collector are filed through District Collector. I did not
call for the papers of Appeal No.79/2012 before the Sub-Divisional
Officer. I did not ask for the documents of Appeal No. 79/2012
from Mr. Budhrani.
Question: Appeal No. 245/2015 was filed by Mr. Budhrani and he
had appointed his own Advocate?
Answer: I say that the Advocate was appointed through accused
No.1.
26. I did not inquire with the concerned Advocate about
his appointment and filing of Appeal. There is no statement of Mr.
Budhrani that the Advocate appointed was through the present
accused No.1. Witness volunteers that it was by way of
agreement. It is true to say that the agreement which I am
referring does not bear the signature of accused No.1. It is true to
-- 8 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 15 - Exh.233
say that the said agreement was not registered or notarized. I do
not know whether the fees for the Advocate were not paid from
the accounts of accused No.1. I had taken all the bank statements
of the accused No.1 during investigation. I had scrutinized all the
bank statements. I did not see whether any amount was paid to
the Advocate from the account of accused No.1 for fees.
Question: It was never revealed in your investigation that said
Advocate was paid fees from the account of accused No.1?
Answer: I did not investigate that aspect.
Question: Have you read the said agreement?
Answer: I have seen it but I have not gone through it in details.
27. I did not inquire with Mr. Budhrani whether he had
ever maintained any inward, outward register for the
correspondence with his office. I did not inquire with the staff of
Mr. Budhrani whether any inward outward register is maintained
in the office. It is true to say that neither Mr. Budhrani nor his
staff members gave any acknowledgment showing the order in
Appeal No. 245/2015 was received from accused No.1. Now I am
shown the outward register (Exhibit-81) of accused No.1. I have
gone through the relevant date and entries. There is no entry in
this register showing that the copy of alleged forged order in
Appeal No. 245/2015 was handed over by accused No.1 to
informant Budhrani. It is true to say that I did not find in any
document which will show that accused No.1 handed over the
copy of alleged forged order of Appeal No. 245/2015 to informant
Budhrani.
-- 9 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 16 - Exh.233
28. The informant Budhrani came to know that the copy of
order is forged on 31.10.2015. The crime came to be registered on
22.09.2018. It is true to say that informant Budhrani had filed an
Appeal No.541/2015 before Divisional Commissioner after
rejection of RTS Appeal No.245/2015. I did not inquire whether
informant Budhrani had appointed his own Advocate in the said
Appeal before Divisional Commissioner. I do not know whether
the said Appeal before Divisional Commissioner was rejected. I do
not know whether informant Budhrani had filed Writ Petition
before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. I do not know whether the
said Writ Petition is still pending. I do not know whether
informant Budhrani has a legal team to look after all these aspects.
It is true to say that I have not inquired with any of the Advocates
who represented Mr. Budhrani in the Appeals and Petitions.
29. I did not inquire in the office of Additional Collector
whether a copy of the order in the said RTS Appeal was forwarded
to the parties in that Appeal by post.
Question: The informant has not made any reference to the alleged
forged order given by accused No.1 causing delay in filing the
Appeal before Divisional Commissioner or even in filing Petition
before the Hon’ble High Court?
Answer: I have not conducted investigation in this aspect.
Now I am shown the applications for certified copy at Exh-228 to
231. All these four applications do not ask for a certified copy of
the order dated 28.10.2015 in RTS Appeal No.245/2015. There
was nothing revealed in investigation as to where this forged order
-- 10 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 17 - Exh.233
was actually prepared, typed. It is not true to say that nothing was
revealed in the investigation about the stamps and seals used for
the preparation of the forged order. There was no investigation by
me to any stamp manufacturer about the preparation of fake
stamps and use of it. It is true to say that accused No.1 never gave
any statement before me to show the used stamps and seals for the
preparation of the order. Accused No.1 did not show the place
where the said order was actually prepared.
30. It is not true to say that I had sent xerox copy of the
forged order to the handwriting expert. The informant had handed
over the forged order in his custody. It is not true to say that I took
a colour xerox copy of the said order and forwarded it for the
opinion of handwriting expert. I did not record the statement of
the concerned Additional Collector Pravin Shinde and also did not
collect any document from his office showing his natural
signatures. I did not inquire with the office of District Collector
whether it has filed any report with the police station about the
forgery of the order in the said office. I do not know whether
Additional Collector, Alibaug had filed a report with the
Superintendent of Police, Raigad to initiate an action against Mr.
Budhrani for forgery of order. It is not true to say that when I had
been to the office of District Collector, Alibaug, I was orally
informed about this report sent by the said office.
31. I did not inquire with the successor of the then
Additional Collector Pravin Shinde about the forgery of order of
-- 11 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 18 - Exh.233
office. I did not inquire with the said office whether it has filed
any report about the said forgery of the order and whether any
action has been initiated. I did not verify the documents in RTS
Appeal No.245/2015. Witness volunteers that these documents
were sent in Appeal and I could not verify them. I did not visit the
office of Divisional Commissioner to verify the documents in
Appeal No. 245/2015. It is not true to say that I have intentionally
ignored to investigate the matter and the letter issued by
Additional Collector only to save Mr. Budhrani. It is not true to say
that the concerned office had time and again informed me about
the report filed by the said office against Mr. Budhrani. It is not
true to say that Mr. Budhrani tried to save his skin by blaming
everything on the accused No.1. It is not true to say that a false
crime was registered against accused No.1. It is not true to say
that I was aware that the informant Mr. Budhrani is guilty. It is not
true to say that still I went ahead and conducted a false
investigation against accused No.1.
32. I do not know whether the concerned Additional
Collector had called for opinion of the office of Conservator of
Forest during the hearing of RTS Appeal No.245/2015. It is true to
say that not a single witness from the office of Additional Collector
stated that accused No.1 was participating and conducting the said
Appeal and they had seen him. It is true to say that it was never
revealed in my investigation that accused No.1 took the opinion of
Conservator of Forest and filed the same alongwith an application
in RTS Appeal No.245/2015.
-- 12 of 13 --
C.C. No. 761/PW/2019 - 19 - Exh.233
Question: Did you investigate whether the said opinion was or was
not sent by Conservator of Forest to the office of Additional
Collector?
Answer: I did not record any statement from the said office of
Conservator of Forest. But I say that there is correspondence
showing this.
Question: Did you inquire as to who had handed over the said
opinion in RTS Appeal No.245/2015?
Answer: I had correspondence with Tahsildar in this regard.
I have not recorded statement of Tahsildar or any other officer.
33. It is true to say that the accused No.1 did not give me
any statement showing his willingness to show how and where the
opinion was prepared.
(Cross-examination deferred due to recess)
R. O. & A. C.
Sd/-
(Abhijit R. Solapure)
Addl. C. J. M., 47th Court,
Date : 06.01.2026 Esplanade, Mumbai.
-- 13 of 13 --