COMMON ORDER

Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2019 is filed by Thamizhselvi/accused No.1, who was the President of the Panchayat; Narasimha Bharathi/accused No.3, was the Village Assistant, working in the Panchayat, and Valar Selvi/accused No.4, was the Makkal Nala Paniyalar working with the Panchayat, and Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2019, is filed by Rani/accused No.2, the Vice President of the Panchayat, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 09.10.2017 in C.C.No.228 of 2009, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, in and by which, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offenses under Section 465 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment, for a period of one month and also found the accused guilty of the offenses under Sections 408, 468, 420 of Indian Penal Code, and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years each, in respect of each of the offenses and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- each, in respect of each of the offenses and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and the Common Judgment dated 12.12.2018 of the Learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in Crl.A.No.103 of 2017 and Crl.A.No.1 of 2018, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, however, by acquitting the petitioners for the offense under Section 465 of IPC, thereby, partly allowing the appeals.

2.Since, both the revisions have arisen out of the same case and same Judgment, are taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Judgment.

3.The gist of the allegations of the case of prosecution is that, the first accused being the President of the Kizhanatham Panchayat, the second accused being the Vice President of the same Panchayat, the third accused being the Village Assistant, working in the same Panchayat and the fourth accused, being the Makkal Nala Paniyalar attached to the same Panchayat, from 23.04.2007 to 28.09.2007, for about 55 days under the scheme framed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, had made records as if One Balakrishnan, had worked as a labour and disbursed a sum of Rs.4,400/-, while the said Balakrishnan had died on 20.03.2017 itself. Therefore, the four accused were prosecuted for the above said offenses.

4.Heard Mr.T.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2019; and Mr.J.Saravanavel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2019; and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)

appearing for the prosecution.

5.At the outset, as far as the conviction for the offense under Section 468 of IPC is concerned, a perusal of the charge as well as evidence on record would reveal that the investigating agency has not investigated as to who was the maker of the alleged false document viz. the Attendance Registrar signed in the name of Balakrishnan, and in the absence of the same, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sheila Sebastian vs. R.Jawaharaj and Anr.1, the conviction of the four petitioners is unsustainable. Unless the petitioners are alleged to be the makers of the said false document, the said conviction and sentence under Section 468 of IPC, is unsustainable.

6.Now, coming to the offense under Section 420 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Judgment Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh and Anr2, held that if the cheating is pleaded on account of the forging a document and if offense of the forgery is not proved, then the offense under Section 420 of IPC., will also not stand proved. It is useful to extract the relevant passage of the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, hereunder:-

1 (2018) 7 SCC 581 2 (1996) 11 SCC 622 "10. In view of all the above, we agree with Shri Jethmalani that the allegations made in the complaint, even if true,