ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order, dated

15.03.2016 in C.A. No.41 of 2015, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the Judgment, dated 22.06.2015 in C.C.

No. 181 of 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur. 2. The petitioner/accused was tried before the trial Court. The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 22.06.2015 in C.C. No.181 of 2010, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Two weeks, for the offence under Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC.

3. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in C.A.No.40 of 2015. The lower appellate Court, by judgment dated 15.03.2016, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision case.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of CBCID, Thanjavur, filed a final report before the trial Court against A-1 to A-5 in this case. Before framing of charges, it is reported on the side of the prosecution that A-2 Gouva Kani as dead and as such, the offence levelled against her is abated. The 1st accused u/s 464 r/w 465 of IPC, the third accused u/s 419 of IPC and the 4th & 5th u/s 471 & 468 of IPC have been charged by the trial Court. After full contest, A-1, A-3 to A-5 have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and against the conviction, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.40 of 2015. The appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Senior Advocate for Mr.C. Gangai Amaran, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mrs.M.Anantha Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent / State.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as an Inspector of Police, Nadukaveri Police Station and at that time the alleged accident took place and the petitioner registered a complaint which was given by P.W.4. He further submitted that P.W.12, Investigating Officer has deposed before the trial Court that the RC book, insurance policy of the vehicle bearing regn. No. TN-L-5991 lorry are genuine in nature and no alteration has been made in the said documents. And therefore, there is no case made out against the petitioner under Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC. He further submitted that no charge was framed against the petitioner as if he altered the records of investigation and the said allegation is made on presumption and assumption only by the Courts below. Hence, the Judgment of the Court below are liable to be set aside. He prays to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

7. Per contra, Mrs.M. Anantha Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that all the accused colludedly inducted a vehicle as if the vehicle caused the accident and the same was driven by the 3rd accused. The 4th accused himself gave a complaint as if he saw the accident. But, really one Pilavendran who saw the accident brought the injured immediately to the hospital and he had made first information to the doctor. His version was entered into the Accident Register. But, subsequently, all the accused with an intention of getting compensation for the accused Nos.1 & 2, have colludedly inducted the vehicle of the 3rd accused as if it caused the accident, for which, the 4th accused gave a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, the 5th accused registered the first information report and after investigation, he laid the charge sheet, as if it is a genuine case. All the five accused acted knowing fully well inducted a new story by introducin