The main legal point established is that ration cards can be considered 'Valuable Security' under Section 30 I.P.C, based on the privileges and benefits they confer.

1. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (D.V.A.C), Nagercoil, is the appellant and aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2002 made in C.C.No.67 of 1994 under which both the accused were acquitted for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C., the present appeal is filed. Though the accused were convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 read with Section 465 and Section 420 (2 counts) I.P.C and were imposed with the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment, they have not preferred the appeal against the said conviction and hence, it became final.

2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

P.W.15 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil, at the relevant point of time and he received the source information with regard to the irregularities taking place in the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, with regard to the issuance of Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate and Renewal of Licence, decided to conduct a surprise check and accordingly, required the services of P.W.14, who was employed as Supervisor in the services of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.

3. P.W.14 also acceded to the request and came to the office of P.W.15. P.W.15 with his police party and P.W.14 proceeded to the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and on seeing them, A.1 and one Baskaran @ Parameswaran who were carrying small recksin bags, tried to flee away and they were caught. The hand bags of the accused were searched. The hand bag of A.1 contained the driving licence of one Packiamani, Peer Mohammed, duplicate driving licence of Ambrose, Murugesan (not examined as a witness), Ponnulingam (P.W.1), Arul Ebenezer (P.W.2) and Suyambu (P.W.3) and also a sum of Rs.437/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Thirty Seven only). Since the accused failed to offer explanation as to the availability of the said documents, they were arrested and brought to the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and thereafter, they were enlarged on bail.

4. P.W.15, in this regard, registered an F.I.R under Ex.P.34 and prepared the proceedings under Ex.P.33 and also the mahazar under Ex.P.2. P.W.15, in the course of investigation had also seized the documents from the Regional Transport Office and also examined the officials of the Regional Transport Office and came to know that A.1 and A.2 and one P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.7 belonged to Tirunelveli District and that they fabricated the ration cards as if they are the residents of Kanyakumari District and produced the same at the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil and got the Learners' Driving Licence.

5. P.W.15, after completion of investigation, has filed the final report and the same was taken cognizance by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and it framed the charges against the accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 474 read with 467, 420, 471 read with 467 and 420 I.P.C and questioned both the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges.

6. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.34 and also marked M.O.1 and M.O.2.

7. Both the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them and they denied it. On behalf of the accused, one Sundaram was examined as D.W.1 and no exhibits were marked.

8. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the accused were not guilty for the commission of the offences under Section 474 read with Section 467 I.P.C on the ground that the ration card cannot be termed as 'Valuable Security' and in respect of t