ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.45 of 2010 dated 03.04.2018 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.43 of 2008 dated 06.08.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 465 & 468 r/w

109 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused are residing in the same village. The defacto complainant owned ancestral properties to an extent of 15.53 acres at Mookandapalli Village comprised in Survey Nos.604/3, 604/1, 604/2, 604/6, 605/7, 762/3-A, 650, 651, 652, 660/1, 660/3 and the defacto complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. One Munireddy is also owned property to an extent of 35 acres in survey Nos. 525, 647, 648, 649, 643, 544,759 and 461, situated at Kothur, Mookandapalli and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

3. While being so, the petitioners/accused along with two other unknown persons entered into criminal conspiracy to do certain illegal activities by illegal means by creating forged document of gift deed pertaining to the above property totaling to an extent of 50 acres of land situated at Mookandapalli village. The first accused without having any right over the said property fraudulently and dishonestly executed settlement deed in favour of his wife the second accused. The second accused also effectively assisted and abetted the first accused to execute the said settlement deed in her favour and two other unknown persons were witnessed the said illegal document as if the first accused is the owner of the said property. Hence the complaint.

4. On receipt of the same, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.129 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. On the side of the accused, the first petitioner himself examined as R.W.1 and also marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found them guilty for the offence under Sections 465 & 468 r/w. 109 of IPC and convicted the first petitioner under Sections 465 & 468 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each offence and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence, in default three months simple imprisonment and also convicted the second petitioner for the offences under Sections 465, 468 r/w 109 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each offence and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence, in default three months simple imprisonment and the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 465 would not at all attracted as against the petitioners. The defacto complainant has no title over the property. He is claiming the said property under the revenue patta and the revenue patta is not the title document. Whereas the petitioners have title over the property to execute the settlement deed. In fact, the first petitioner executed the settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner. At the time of execution of settlement deed, the settlee did not present at the time of registration of the documents. Therefore, if at all any charges would attract, only as against the first petitioner alone and not as against the second petitioner. The second petitioner had no knowledge about the exec