Comparison of handwriting by Court.

Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 1964 is filed by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikara in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1963 acquitting the respondents (accused). The charge against the first accused was for committing forgery on page 19 in Book No. 1, volume 174, where a sale deed Exhibit P-1 had been copied and the second accused is charged for abetment of the above said forgery. P.W. 1 has filed the revision petition for the same relief.

The second accused is a licensed document writer of the Vennikulam Sub Registrar’s office. P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife with others had sold three items of properties to the second accused under a registered assignment deed Exhibit P-1 item I, having an extent of 11 1/3 cents and item 2 being 12 cents in extent. In between these two items there was another property belonging to P.W. 2 having an extent of 19 1/3 cents which was not the subject-matter of the sale deed, Exhibit P-1 and it remaind in the possession of P.Ws. 1 and 2. On 24th November, 1961 P.Ws. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to sell this item to P.W. 3. The second accuse d probably wanted it for himself and did not like an item of property in-between his properties to go to another. So on the foot of an alleged agreement of sale of this property to him he filed a civil suit O.S. No. 407 of 1961 before the Munsiff’s Court. Thiruvalla for declaration of his rights in the property and for an injunction restraining P.W. 2 and the other defendants from selling it to P.W. 3. Exhibit P-30 is, the plaint in the suit. To support his case the second accused wanted some documentary evidence. P.W. 4 is an assistant working under the second accused and he was the scribe of Exhibit P-1, sale deed. The second accused, therefore, persuaded P.W. 4 to add one sentence in the original sale deed to the effect that there was a prior agreement to sell this item of property to him and that an advance amount of Rs. 350 had been received by P.W. 2. P.W.4 was not amenable to this. He pointed out that the document having been copied in Book No. 1 without a corresponding entry in that book no correction or interpolations could be made in Exhibit P-1. The second accused said that there was no difficulty, that his friend the first accused who is a clerk in the Sub-Registrar’s Office could be got to make the necessary interpolations in volume 174 of book 1. So on a day between 24th November, 1961 and 30th November, 1961, the second accused and P.W. 4 went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and gave the first accused a chit showing the alteration to be made and the first accused made the necessary interpolations in the volume. A petition Exhibit P-2 for effecting mutation proceedings had also been prepared and presented to the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the document. It is only on the first sheet that the parties had signed and on the back of that sheet the Sub-Registrar had made necessary endorsements. The second accused said that he would get the document from the Village Office and make the necessary alterations in that petition and it was done. P.W. 4 agreed to interpolate the required entry in the sale deed Exhibit P-1 and did it. After thus making alterations in these documents on 18th December, 1961, the second accused filed another civil Suit O.S. No. 438 of 1961 against P.Ws. 2, 3 and others for specific performance. Exhibit P-31 is the copy of the plaint. On receipt of the summons P.W. 3 applied for a registration copy of the sale deed. Exhibit P-8 is the copy supplied from the Sub-Registrar’s Office. On seeing this P.W. 1 assured P.W. 3 that there was, in fact, no such agreement and the whole thing was a fraud played upon them. On 29th December, 1961, P.W. 3 filed a petition Exhibit P-9 to the I.G. of Registration. P.W. I also filed a petition before the District Registrar, Quilon and also before the I.G. They were enquired into by the District Registrar who reported that accused 1 and 2 were