ORDER :

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 has been allowed and the opposite parties were acquitted from the charges committed under Section 420 and 120 (B) of IPC.

2. The case of the complainant-petitioner in brief is that the complainant, Rabi Rajwar, Niranjan Rajwar, Anadi Rajwar and Bideshi Rajwar are the owner of land appertaining to Mauza No. 28, Khata No. 87, Area 1 acre 68 decimals of village Dumorjore and they were in the settled possession of the land. The complainant alongwith the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were descendants of the recorded raiat. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 presented themselves as sons of Jitu Rajwar and sold the property in question of the complainant and his family members to accused nos. 7 to 10 vide registered sale deed No. 125 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006.

3. After inquiry a prima facie case was found proved and charges were framed against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 under Section 420 and 120(B) IPC. They pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial.

4. The learned trial court found the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 guilty for the offence committed under Section 420 and 120(B) IPC and convicted them accordingly.

5. On appeal, the learned appellate court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 from the charges under Sections 420 and 120(B) IPC placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC Cri. 929 wherein the law is held as under:

“14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.

3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a “false document”, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.

15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.

16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide be