The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused can be prosecuted for forgery even if they were not the direct signatories of the false document, as long as they were involved in its creation and use.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the conviction Judgment passed by the Learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in Crl.A.No.78 of 2018, dated 23.04.2019 by reversing the Judgment made in C.C.No.78 of 2012, dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai and set the petitioners at liberty.)

A. Brief Facts Leading to the Revision:

1. On 29.10.2010, when P.W.16, was on duty at the District Crime Branch, Cuddalore, P.W.1/Suganthi, appeared before her and lodged a complaint, to the effect that her grand-father/R.B.Govindasamy Naidu, had purchased and registered in her name, the property being 5 Acre and 5 Cents in Alamelumangapuram Village, vide Document No.403 of 1970 and Document No.1345 of 1974. While so, her brother, R.Ramachandran had falsely registered a Power of Attorney as if she gave power to him by forging her signature, as well as the thumb impression and registering the same as Document No.52 of 2003 and have dealt with the same including obtaining of EB connection, etc.

2. On the strength of the said complaint a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2010 for the offenses under Sections 420, 465, and 468 of Indian Penal Code. The case was taken up for Investigation initially by P.W.18. Thereafter, P.W.21 continued the Investigation and completed the same and filed a final report, proposing all the three accused guilty of the offences under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was taken on file by the Learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai, in C.C.No.78 of 2012, and after the appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies as per Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused was questioned and upon questioning, the accused denied the allegations and stood trial.

3. Thereupon, to bring home the charges, on behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.21 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-26 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and the incriminating circumstances on record under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the accused.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the prosecution and the Learned Counsel for the accused, by Judgment dated 22.11.2017 found the accused not guilty of the charges and acquitted all three of them.

5. Aggrieved by the same P.W.1, namely Suganthi, filed an appeal in C.A.No.78 of 2018, on the file of the II-Additional District Sessions Court, Chidambaram, and by a Judgment dated 23.04.2019, the Learned Session Judge, upturned the finding of acquittal into one of guilt and found:

(i) The first accused guilty, of the offence punishable under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code, and imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment; Of the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment; Of the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment; Of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.

(ii) The second accused was found guilty, of the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default in payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment