1. The State and the defacto complainant, namely, Subaitha beevi have filed Crl.A.(MD)No.473 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2009 respectively, against the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.141 of 2008, dated 24.03.2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, wherein the accused was ordered for acquittal.

2. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.473 of 2008/second respondent in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2009 has filed final report against the respondent/accused for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 has never entered into the agreement of sale with the accused herein. After she sold the property to P.W.2, the accused has sent a legal notice Ex.P.5, alleging that there was an existence of sale agreement. Hence, she has preferred this complaint, alleging that her signature namely, Subaitha Beevi, is forged in the alleged sale agreement said to be in favour of the accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that as per Ex.P.8 Forensic Report, P.W.4, handwriting expert, who had examined the questioned signature found in Ex.P.3 sale agreement with the sample signa