Insufficient evidence against certain accused led to their acquittal, while confirming conviction for others with reduced sentences.

ORAL ORDER

1. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2012 passed in CC No.10/2006 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur District and the judgment and order dated 07.12.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.196/2012 by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parities.

3. Petitioners herein were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 466 , 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and were tried for the charge sheeted offences in CC No.10/2006 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur District. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1, who was working as a typist in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Additional JMFC, Tarikere and accused No.2, who was working as a process server in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Tarikere, had created forged salary certificates and other documents by misusing the seal of the Court and forging the signature of the Presiding Officer of the Court and had availed loan of Rs.27,000/- from Canara Bank. Accused No.4, based on the very same forged document of her husband/accused No.1, had also availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur, for which her brother-in-law/accused No.3 was a guarantor. The allegation against accused No.3 is that he impersonated himself as accused No.2 and stood as guarantor to the loan borrowed by his sister-in-law/accused No.4.

4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by them and had pleaded not guilty and therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its allegation against the accused had examined 20 charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW20 and had got marked 40 documents as Ex.P1 to P40. The Trial Court, thereafter, had recorded the statement of accused as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In support of the defence, no oral evidence was laid. However, the loan clearance letter issued by Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur, was marked as Ex.D1. Seal of the Court was produced and marked as MO Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and order dated 18.10.2012, convicted and sentenced the petitioners. For the offence punishable under Section 466 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Section 467 read with 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Sections 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 34 of IPC Act, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonme