1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Revision Case(MD)No.366 of 2011 1. Venkatachalam 2. Amuthavalli 3. Boopathy Raj 4. Ramaraj : Petitioners(Accused) Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District, ( Cr.No.181/2007) : Respondent(Complainant) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the dismissal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of Rajapalayam in Crl.M.P.No.9207/2009 in C.C.No.276 of 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.V. Nagendran For Respondent : Mr. P. Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER The following are the allegations found in the petition filed by the revision petitioners/1 to 4 accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C:- Charge sheet has been filed by the respondent police against these petitioners under Sections 465, 471 and 420 I.P.C and the case has been posted for framing charges against the accused. In the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. from the prosecution witnesses 10 in number, there was no material against these petitioners under Sections 465,471 and 420 I.P.C. There was no prima facie material. In the copy of the charge sheet given to these petitioners under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the statements given by 1 to 4 witnesses were not mentioned. But further statement recorded on 20.8.2009 was given. In the FIR dated 26.5.2007 the first witness has requested the police to find out the accused without mentioning their names. As per statements of witnesses, there is no material to show that 1 to 4 accused committed the offences. From the confession statement of 5th accused it would be seen that he alone committed all the offences, in which these petitioners have no direct or indirect connection. Even if the statements of the witnesses were accepted, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 on that basis no sentence can be passed against these accused. Hence these petitioners may be discharged from the case. 2. In the objections filed by the respondent, it is alleged that the certificates produced by the petitioners before the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Madurai, was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam for finding the genuineness of Migration Certificate allegedly given. The said Tahsildar has confirmed that those certificates were not issued from his office. Hence, it is prima facie clear that 1 to 4 accused have committed offences under Section 465, 471 and 420 I.P.C. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 3. On considering the merits of the matter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam has dismissed the application by observing that prima facie materials are available to frame charges against the petitioners. Hence, they are before this Court in this revision. 4. F.I.R. was lodged by one Arumugam working as Tahsildar, Rajapalayam, in which he has alleged that the certificates reportedly issued to Boopathy Raj and Amuthavalli (A3 and A2) were required to be scrutinised and whether they were issued from the Tahsildar Office, that the complainant opines that the signatures of V.A.O., South Venganallur and Revenue Inspector, Cholapuram were forged. The Certificates and signatures found with office seal of Tahsildar does not belong to him and that the seal is also fabricated. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. also the Tahsildar has stated as above. The V.A.O., South Venganallur and the Revenue Inspector, Cholapuram also have stated that the signatures found in the certificates do not belong to them and that they have been forged. 6. The disputed documents were referred to the hand writing expert in Foensic Sciences Department, Chennai and after examination of the documents, the expert has given opinion that the signatures found in the certificates are not belonging to the concerned officials and the office seal found thereon has been fabricated. 7. 1 to 4 petitioners in their statements recorded by the police, have stated that believing the words of the 5th accused, Rs.300/- was given to the first accused for getting certificates from Rajapalayam Taluk Office for 2 to 4 accused and that only after the Tahsildar informed them, they came to know about the foul play. 8. The charges alleged against the petitioners are under Section 465, 471, 420 I.P.C. Section 465 I.P.C. is penal section for the offence of forgery. Section 471 is dealing with the sentences to be imposed on the person who uses as genuine a forged document fradulently or dishonestly. Section 420 IPC contemplates cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. As far as the conduct of the petitioners is concerned, they did not approach the concerned authorities, who are competent to issue the certificates. They believed the words of somebody else, who represented that he knows https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the officials in the taluk office. At the time of getting the certificates, earlier to their production before the District Employment Office, they did not verify the genuineness of the certificates and they used the certificates as genuine. Whether their act was dishonest or fraudulent can be seen only at the time of appreciation of oral evidence. Prima facie materials are available to frame charges against the petitioners. Hence, there is no infirmity either factual or legal in the order passed by the Court below which deserves to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. None of the observations contained in this order will influence the trial court at the time of final disposal of the case. Consequently, connected M.P.NO.1/2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. 2.Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur 3.The Inspector of Police Thalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ggs ssk/16.11.2011 /5c -3p/- Order in: Crl.R.C.(MD)No.366 of 2011 29.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/