The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence in deciding criminal involvement and the procedural requirement to dispose of trials within a specified period.

Heard Mr. G. Prabhurajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. K. Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

2. This petition is filed to set aside the order dated 20.06.2014 in Cr. M.P. No. 6761 of 2013 in C.C. No. 348 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

3. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and others approached the Revenue Department Officials and obtained a false patta in the name of A3, even though the District Revenue Officer has passed a negative order. When the complainant approached A4 for rectifying the patta, A4 and her husband A1 demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. As the complainant refused to give the demanded amount, A1 to A4 conspired with the other accused and created forged sale deed and a case under Section 163, 164, 166, 167, 468, 471 r/w. 120(b) and 420 of IPC is registered against the accused.

4. The petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred this revision case.

5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the land of 1.30 acres belonged to one Salika Beevi. The complainant purchased the property in the year 1973. The patta was issued in the name of Balkis Beevi for 0.82 cents. When the complainant approached the Village Administrative Officer to change the patta, A4 and her husband demanded bribe. Using the false patta given in the name of Balkis Beevi, the said Balkis Beevi sold the property with the help of other accused. FIR was registered against seven persons and the name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. A1 is the husband of A4. A3 is Balkis Beevi. She sold the land to A2. A5 to A7 witnessed the document. This petitioner is A8.

6. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the civil suit is pending and ownership cannot be decided at this stage and the enquiry of the District Revenue Officer is in favour of A3. The disciplinary proceedings against A4 is also dropped. There is no question of forgery. A3 is the owner of the property. The revenue records stand in her name. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with other accused. P.W.4 was punished by the department for issuing patta in the name of the complainant. But the petitioner was denied promotion. All the juniors of the petitioner are getting promoted.

7. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the part played by the petitioner is not stated in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The District Revenue Officer has decided that the property was in the name of Balkis Beevi in the revenue records even before the UDR. There is no promise to do any act. No act was done by the petitioner. No benefit was received by the petitioner. There is no forgery or imperfection or any criminal intention for the petitioner.

8. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the petitioner is A8 in the case and discharge from the disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken into account the criminal proceedings. The petitioner and others conspired together to grab the land of the complainant and FIR is not a encyclopedia, it cannot be a ground to discharge a person merely because his name is not mentioned in the FIR. Departmental proceedings was done by officials whereas the criminal proceedings needs applying of judicial mind and prayed the revision to be dismissed.

9. On the side of the complainant, it is stated that the petitioner conspired with A5 pasted the photo of A3 and created forged patta pass book and A3 using the same, transferred the patta in the name of A2, and that there is specific overt act against the petitioner. On the side of the second respondent, it is further stated that in the evidence of L.W.1. In the 161 statement of A1 to A4, there are specific al