Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence; it corrects illegality or impropriety in lower court’s orders.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the first accused, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 471 IPC by the trial court and confirmed in appeal.

2. The revision petitioner was the surety for the accused in Crime No. 63 of 2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode and when the accused in the said case absconded, proceedings were initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C and subsequently, when it is revealed that the basic tax receipt produced by the revision petitioner along with bail application is a forged document, prosecution was initiated on the basis of a complaint given by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court against the revision petitioner herein and another accused for the offences under Sections 465 , 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC .

3. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 to 19 and Exhibits P1 to P24 and that of DW1 and Exhibit D1, found the first accused guilty of the offence under Section 471 IPC and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and the appellate court, as per the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 2020, confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused/revision petitioner and dismissed the appeal.

4. Heard Smt. Anjana S. Raj, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on record and Sri. Alex M.

Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the trial court and the appellate court are not justified in arriving at a finding that the revision petitioner produced Exhibit P5 tax receipt with the knowledge that the same is a forged document and that the specific case of the revision petitioner is that even though he produced a genuine tax receipt before PW14, advocate clerk, the same was replaced with Exhibit P5 by PW14 without his knowledge and the trial court and the appellate court failed to take note of the said contention of the revision petitioner in a proper manner.

6. The revision petitioner is not disputing the finding of the trial court and the appellate court that Exhibit P5 is a forged document; but; his contention is that Exhibit P5 is not the tax receipt produced by him before PW14 and that it was PW14 who replaced the original tax receipt produced by him.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor pointed out that the revision petitioner is not disputing his signature in Exhibit P3 affidavit prepared by PW14, advocate clerk, and verified by PW15 advocate. PW15 is the advocate who filed the bail application along with Exhibit P5 tax receipt and Exhibit P3 affidavit of the revision petitioner. The evidence of PW15 clearly shows that Exhibit P5 is the tax receipt produced by the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner signed Exhibit P3 affidavit in his presence and he attested it.

8. In view of the evidence of PWs 14 and 15 and Exhibits P3 and P5, I find no mistake or illegality in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court that it was the revision petitioner who produced Exhibit P5, tax receipt, and signed Exhibit P3, affidavit, for obtaining bail to the accused in Crime No. 63 of 2010 and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly shows that the revision petitioner produced Exhibit P5, tax receipt, with the knowledge that the same is a forged document.

9. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only if there is any illegality or impropriety in the orders of the trial court and the appellate court. It is also well settled that the evi