JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3001 & 3000 of 2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, dated 24.03.2007.)

1. These revision petitions have been filed challenging the order passed in discharge petitions filed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3001 & 3000 of 2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, dated 24.03.2007.

2. Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 has been filed to discharge A3 & A4 and Crl.M.P.No.3000 of 2014 has been filed by the A4, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri. By an order dated 24.03.2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed both the discharge petitions and hence, present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the defacto complainant before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.K.M.Mohamed Ziauddin, learned counsel for Mr.S.M.Hameed Mohideen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both cases and Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel for the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 & third respondent in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017. Since, the remaining parties are not represented by the respective counsels, their names have been printed in the cause list.

4. Admittedly in Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 relating to Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017, the contesting respondents are the revenue officials.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in the family partition, the property was allotted to the defacto complainant and Patta stands in his name. The accused/A1, who is none other than the elder brother of the defacto complainant has induced A2 and A3, who are the revenue officials viz., Village Administrative Officer and the Assistant in the K.Naduhalli, Taluk Office, to evade the institution of the name in the revenue records and obtained Patta in his name. Accordingly, in view of the change in Patta, the first accused had sold the property to the fourth accused. Aggrieved against the same, the fourth accused has also filed Civil Suit and the same is pending before the Trial Court.

6. Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765/2017 and third respondent in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017, would contend that there is no material by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged crime, he is an innocent bonafide purchaser, he ought to have filed petition under Section 417 IPC against A1 and A3. Unfortunately, he has been incorporated as an accused, in the age of 34 years. In the absence of any positive material to connect, he was cause for the creation of false document. The trial Court has rightly discharged him.

7. The learned Magistrate has observed that LW13/Tahsildar has categorically gave a statement before the Investigating Officer that no order for transfer of Patta was effected and the alleged action of the accused viz., A2 & A3 to change the Patta at the Village Register is not supported by any Patta transfer order by the Competent Authority viz., Tahsildhar.

8. In view of specific material available in the form of the statement of LW13/Tahsildhar, the competent witness to speak about the public document, the Trial Court had erred in discharging A2 & A3 and hence, this Court finds that there is a sufficient material to presume A2 & A3, who are the revenue offcials, that without any order from the competent authority to effect mutation of name on revenue records viz., Chitta and Patta, they have effected the patta in connivance with A1 and hence, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, in Crl.M.P.No.3001 of 2014 is liable to be set aside and A2 & A3 are ordered to be re-arrayed in C.C.No.51 of 2013 as A3 and A4 and to face the trial.9. Further, Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel for the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.765 of 2017 and third respondent in Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2017, would contend that based upon the document produced by the first accused