P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Moovattupuzha police station in Crime No.595/2002 prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolenchery accusing offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 468 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years while acquitting him for the other offences.

2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.485/2003 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), by the impugned judgment dated 31.1.2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

3. The prosecution case is that the revision petitioner was working as a Peon attached to the office of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, wherein PW1 was the Presiding Officer. PW1 got Ext.P3 letter from the Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprise, Mattanchery, who was examined as PW7, requesting verification of the salary certificate of the revision petitioner said to have been produced before PW7 offering the revision petitioner as a surety for a kuri in which one Kamarudeen was the subscriber. On verification, it was found that no such salary certificate was issued from the office to the revision petitioner. So request was made to PW7 to forward the salary certificate produced before PW7. Accordingly, PW7 forwarded Ext.P2 salary certificate to PW1. On verification, it was found that Ext.P2 was purporting to be a salary certificate issued by PW1 under his signature and seal of the court. Though the seal of the court and his designation seal affixed on Ext.P2 are that of originals, the signature of PW1 was found forged. Ext.P2 also contains the signature of the revision petitioner. The salary particulars recorded in Ext.P2 were found not true. Though PW1 made an attempt to get clarification from the revision petitioner, he was found absconding from the office. Therefore, PW1 sent Ext.P1 complaint to the Station House Officer, Moovattupuzha Police Station. PW9, a Head Constable, who was in charge of the police station, on getting Ext.P1, registered the case for which Ext.P6 First Information Report was prepared. PW6, the Sub Inspector, took over the investigation. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Moovattupuzha. Under orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kolenchery.

4. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance. After hearing either side, charge for the above said offences was framed, read over and explained to which the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the revision petitioner was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a plea of total innocence. He further stated that he did'nt know to write English and that he had no connection with Ext.P2 and that he was falsely implicated. Though he was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was adduced. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as above.

5. I have heard Adv. Sri.Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Sareena George, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me throug