A Magistrate who is the successor-in-office of the Magistrate before whom an offence is committed has jurisdiction to prefer a complaint under S. 476, Cr. P. C.

ORDER :- This is a revision which has been filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1955 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli Division in C. A. No. 217 of 1956.

2. V. C. Subramanian Chettiar, the Revision petitioner before me, had married one Pichai Ammal, the only daughter of Sankarakuttalathammal. There was a daughter by that marriage. Sometime afterwards both Pichai Ammal and this daughter died. This Sankarakuttalathammal viz., the ex-mother-in-law of this Revision Petitioner had inherited properties of considerable value from her deceased husband. There was interminable civil litigations about it which came up to High Court and eventually this petitioner got a share of the properties. On account of these litigations there was bitter ill-feeling between this Revision Petitioner and the said Sankarakuttalathammal.

3. P.W. 1 Chitraputran Chettiar had married Sankarakuttalathammals brothers daughter by name Gomathi. There was a son by that marriage. I have just referred to the litigations between Sankarakuttalathammal and this petitioner not only on the civil side which came up to the High Court but also on the criminal side, in which this petitioner finally got a share. In the said litigations Sankarakuttalathammal was being assisted by that Chitraputran Chettiar. Sankarakuttalathammal had come to take up her residence with that Chitraputran Chettiar.

It is not surprising in these circumstances that in 1941 Sankarakuttalathammal gifted some of her properties to Chitraputran Chettiars wife Gomathi under Ex. P-2. Gomathi was put in possession of the properties. The pattas for these properties were transferred in her name: Vide Exs. P-3 to P-8. Subsequently Gomathi Ammal alienated some of those properties and bequeathed the rest to her minor son under Ex. P-23 in 1950. This Gomathi died subsequently and after her death Chitraputran Chettiar has been in possession of the properties on behalf of his minor son.

4. On 14-6-1951 Sankarakuttalathammal made a Will as per Ex. P-24 giving the other properties she had to Chitraputran Chettiar. On account of the fact that Sankarakuttalathammal had become bedridden by that time, the Sub-Registrar was brought to the house and Ex. P-24 was registered. Some time later on 5-10-1951 Sankarakuttalathammal executed a gift deed Ex. P-25 in favour of P.W. 1. This was also registered in P.W. 1s house by the Sub-Registrar. Ten days later Sankarakuttalathammal died. P.W. 1 performed her obsequies.

5. After Sankarakuttalathammals death the properties covered by Ex. P-25 have been in the possession and enjoyment of P.W. 1. The Revision Petitioner and others began to interfere with P.W. 1s possession of those properties. Thereupon he filed a petition M. C. No. 3 of 1952 on 1-3-1952 before the Executive Second-Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil, under S. 144, Cr. P. C., against this petitioner and some others: vide Ex. P-26.

This petitioner contested that petition. He filed a counter Ex. P-27 on 31-3-1952. On the same day (31-3-1952) he filed an unregistered Will Ex. P-28 purporting to have been executed by Sankarakuttalathammal on 15-10-1951, when it will be remembered that Sankarakuttalathammal had become practically bed-ridden and could not move out of the house of P.W. 1, where she had been residing for some considerable time.

6. On coming to know that this petitioner had filed Ex. P-28, and which P.W. 1 knew could be demonstrated beyond all doubt as a fabricated Will, P.W. 1 filed a petition Ex. P-29 on 31-3-1952 itself to impound Ex. P-28. Then this petitioner finding that the fat was on the fire, promptly applied for the return of Ex. P-28. The Executive Second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil, refused to return Ex. P-28 to the petitioner and impounded it. An order under S. 144, Cr. P. C., was passed in favour of P.W. 1.

The petitioner filed an appeal therefrom and that appeal was dismissed for default