1. This revision petition is filed against the conviction for an offence under Section 468 , 471 and 420 I.P.C. and sentence of one year R.I. in each count with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each count in default 4 months S.I. to run concurrently.

2. According to the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence. According to him, the lower Court has only convicted on the basis of the Expert’s opinion without any corroborative evidence given by any of the witnesses. According to the petitioner, he was the power agent of the de facto complainant. The Power of Attorney was registered in the year 1994 itself. Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 are the original and the photocopy of the same. The Sale Deeds are executed after P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 purchased the property under exhibits Exhibit P-2, Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9. The sale has been executed in the year 1997 itself. Thereafter, for the first time, the complaint has been made only in the year 2004.

3. It is also made clear by him that, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 the purchasers have categorically stated that they have met the de facto complainant before purchase and ascertained her right over the properties and then purchased the property and hence, she was aware of the sale transaction. The brokers were examined as P.W.11 and P.W.12 and they have also ascertained that they took the purchasers to the de facto complainant and they received commission both from the de facto complainant and the purchasers. Therefore, it is not the case that the de facto complainant was not aware of the sale transaction.

4. Taking into consideration at a later point of time, they have come forward with the present complaint much later in the year 2004, infact the one person who is very vital to the case is the husband of the de facto complainant who is neither been cited as witness nor examined on account of the de facto complainant, when infact P.W.2 and P.W.3 the sons have categorically stated in their evidence that they are not aware of any of the transaction and it is only their father who knew about this, therefore their evidence also could not be taken. Even P.W.1 herself have stated that she does not know directly about the complaint, she has only put her signature and only her husband knows everything. Only because of the Expert’s evidence, it is opined that a signature found in the Power of Attorney as well as the signature obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation differs and as the agent he has been held responsible which according to law is not sustainable.

5. Further, he would also contend that originally the Registrar was implicated as the accused and he has been discharged. The Attesting witness of the Power of Attorney also was acquitted by the Appellate Court and only the power agent, the present revision petitioner alone has now been convicted and others have been set free. Hence, he would contend that the very conviction on the basis of the Expert’s opinion is legally not sustainable without any corroborative evidence to substantiate the Crime.

6. The learned Government advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that it is not that the signature is compared by the Expert only but also the signature obtained by the Investigating Officer. According to him, P.W.15 is one Expert who has compared the signatures in the Power of Attorney along with the admitted signature in Exhibit P-11 and Exhibit P-12 and has come to the conclusion that the signature differs.

7. He would further contend that, P.W.16, Bank Manager was summoned and examined and he produced the admitted specimen signature of the de facto complainant and subsequently, they were marked as Exhibit P-14 and Exhibit P-15. Those signatures were compared with those of the signature in the Power of Attorney by the Expert. P.W.17 who has also compared the signature produced by the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the signature found in the Power of Attorn