The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's possession of a forged document under S.474 I.P.C., and the court's reliance on evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case to reach its decision.

1. Krishnan Kesavan, the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Court of Trivandrum has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of that Court under S.474 I.P.C. for having been in possession of a'valuable security', to wit, a lease deed, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The lease deed in question is Ext. P3 and the case arose out of a complaint filed by Pw.1 before the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Chirayinkil on November 9,1953. The complainant, who is an Advocate, alleged in his petition of complaint that on March 20, 1953 he had permitted the accused to live in a building situate in the northern portion of Parambil Purayidom in Attingal Pakuthy for a period of 3 months and that when he demanded surrender of the same, the accused set up title to the building and paramba as a lessee setting up a case that on 16.5.1117 the complainant had executed a lease deed in his favour. Ext. P2, dated November 3, 1953 is the reply notice sent by the accused in answer to the 'quit notice' issued by the complainant through a lawyer. The institution of the complaint followed soon afterwards on 9.11.1953 and the complaint set out that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under S.467 I.P.C. (forgery of valuable security), S.471 I.P.C. read with S.511 I.P.C.(attempt to use a forged document as genuine) and S.474 I.P.C. (having possession of a forged document knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine). After the complaint was entertained, at the instance of the complainant, the court issued a search warrant for the recovery of the alleged forged document. The Police however returned the warrant without executing it. Afterwards, on November 30,1953 the complainant moved the learned Second Class Magistrate to issue a notice to the accused to produce the document in court and the court accordingly called upon the accused to produce the same. Complying with that notice, the lease deed (Ext. P3) was produced by the accused before the court on February 9,1954. The case was afterwards transferred to the file of the Attingal First Class Magistrate, who after the usual preliminary enquiry, committed the accused for trial before the Trivandrum Sessions Court for commission of offences punishable under S.465 (forgery), S.467 and S.474 I.P.C. At the trial the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence that the accused had committed forgery, but held that the offences under S.474 was brought home to him. Accordingly, while acquitting the accused of the charges under S.465 and 467 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as stated above under S.474 I.P.C. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

2. Parambil Purayidom in Attingal Pakuthy, comprised in Sy. Plot. 300, was 2 acres and 26 cents in extent. It belonged to the tarwad of the complainant and in O.S. 145 of 1120 on the file of the Trivandrum District Court, the complainant obtained a decree for partition of the same under which 85 cents in the northern portion was allotted to his share. A prayer made in the plaint in the suit was that the share Pw.1 had in the property should be given to his daughter Leelavathi Amma, who was plaintiff 2 in the case and the decree granted that prayer. Pursuant thereto the executing court delivered the said 85 cents to her. This delivery was on March 7,1953, vide delivery receipt Ext. P1. As plaintiff 2 was a minor it was her mother, plaintiff 3 in the suit, who passed the receipt to the Amin who effected the delivery. The complainant's case is that after the delivery he remained in possession of the property, for and on behalf of his minor daughter and according to the complainant, at the instance of the complainant's son, Pw. 2, an Advocate practising at Attingal he permitted the accused to occupy the