A clear link between the accused's actions and the alleged forgery must be established for a conviction under Section 471 IPC.

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No. 372 of 1990 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. It is a prosecution brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Cochin Unit, under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code , on the allegation that in March-April, 1998, the accused received an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from one Gangadharan on an offer to arrange visa for job abroad on a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, he accordingly went abroad, and when the complainant reached there, he was granted job only on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. Finding it not possible to pull on with a meager salary, and also finding it not possible to suffer the harassment there, the complainant came back to India, and approached the accused for the money he paid. The accused declined the request, and then the complainant approached the Office of the Protector of Emigrants for the money deposited by him for emigration clearance. At that time, the complainant realized that nothing had been in fact deposited in his name, and that he was really being cheated by the accused on a false offer that he would get a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- abroad. On the basis of the information received regarding this cheating, and also the forgery made by the accused, the CBI registered a crime, and proceeded for investigation. The forgery alleged is that, for obtaining emigration clearance, the accused created some false documents in the name of the Union Bank of India and also the Protector of Emigrants. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report in court.

2. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 IPC . The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, and proved Exts. P1 to P37 documents in the trial court.

3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. But Exts. D1 to D3 documents were marked on his side.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 468 IPC . Accordingly, he was acquitted of the said offence. However, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 420 and 471 . On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 420 , and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section

471 IPC , by judgment dated 12.08.1993.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam, with Crl. A.No. 338 of 1993. In appeal, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 22.07.1997. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

6. On a perusal of the entire materials, and on hearing both sides, I find no ground or reason for interference in revision in the finding and the conviction concurrently made by the courts below under Section 420 IPC . But as regards the conviction under Section 471 , I find that there is no definite material as against the accused.

7. PW1 is the defacto complainant who paid money to the accused on believing his promise that he would arrange visa for job abroad on a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Payment of Rs.15,000/- on two occasions by PW1 stands well proved in this case. It has come out in evidence that visa was in fact arranged by one Sudhakaran who is employed abroad, and it was provided through the accused. It was the accused who made the complainant believe that he would get a job abroad on a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. But when the complainant went abroad, and started working there, he realized that he was being cheated, and he was paid only a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. This definite evidence given by the complainant stands not discredited. Of course, it is true that the