Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere unless appellate order perverse or unreasonable.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed by the State against the judgment dated 28-02-2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2015 of the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, whereby the respondents/accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC and sentenced for the lesser offence under Section 465 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons four in number, in furtherance of their common intention to deceive the defacto complainant, created a fraudulent document pertaining to an extent of 4.5 Ares of property owned by PW2 and it is alleged that on 16-01-1998, the second accused fraudulently registered a sale deed in respect of the above property in favour of the first accused at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mundiyeruma.

3. The trial court acquitted the third accused and the charge as against the fourth accused abated. Against the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC, they preferred an appeal. As per the impugned judgment, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC and they were found guilty under Section 465 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

4. Heard Sri.Alex M.Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.Domson J.vattakkuzhy, the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW2 and Exhibit P13 FSL report would show that Exhibit P11 sale deed dated 16-01-1998 was not executed by PW2, and that it was the second accused who signed the said sale deed by impersonating PW2 and therefore, the Appellate court is not justified in recording a finding that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC against the respondents/accused.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that a perusal of the final report filed by the Investigating Officer and the court charge would clearly show that the prosecution has no case of any impersonation by the second accused, and there was also no charge for the offence under Section 205 IPC. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents also invited my attention to Exhibit P14 FSL report regarding the handwriting and signature, and pointed out that the expert has not given any definite conclusion.

7. The Appellate court arrived at the finding that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 465 IPC mainly for the reason that the thumb impression in Exhibit P11 is that of the second accused, and that the stamp paper for Exhibit P11 was purchased in the name of the first accused, and that the said document was created under the circumstances stated in Section 464 IPC.

8. There is no allegation of any dishonest inducement by the accused persons to deliver any property, and in the absence of any allegation of dishonest inducement or delivery of property by any person as a result of such inducement, I find no error or illegality in the view taken by the Appellate court that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

9. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“5. … In its revisional jurisdict