IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1396 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------------------ (CC.402/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA) REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. --------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAZACK, S/O.MOIDEEN KURIKKAL, ANCHACHAVADY P.O. KALIKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED NOs. 1 TO 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KURIKKAL MOIDEEN, S/O.UNNEEN KURIKKAL MANCHERI HOUSE, CHENAPPADY, KALIKAVU AMSOM. 3. AYISHA, W/O.MOIDEENKURIKKAL, MANCHERI HOUSE, CHENAPPADY, KALIKAVU AMSOM. 4. ALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED, KAPPEYKKADAN HOUSE, KALLAMKUNNAM, KALIKAVU AMSOM. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R2 TO R4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No. 1396 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the defacto complainant against the order of acquittal in a case registered on a police report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. Four persons were arrayed as accused persons. The allegation is regarding the forgery of a document, showing it as one executed by PW1, the defacto complainant. 2. At the outset, I may notice that there is a civil suit pending on the question of title and the sustainability of the document in question. Keeping aside all other details regarding the material evidence brought on record, it needs to be noticed that the document which is alleged to have been forged is one, as executed in favour of the second accused. The original of that document was not available for scrutiny, eventhough, PW6, the scribe was cited to identify the signature. Efforts taken by the prosecution to summon Crl.R.P.1396/2004 - 2 - the witness, the Sub Registrar, CW7, also failed, resulting in the prosecution giving up that witness. 3. The complaint essentially proceeds on the basis of the pendency of the civil suit and certain materials on the basis of which it is stated that the finger print bureau has opined that the document is a forged one. However, the question in a criminal case on an allegation of forgery is also as to the identity of the person who is alleged to have committed the offence of forgery. The mere fact that the document is a forged one and is shown to have been executed as if it is in favour of the 2nd accused, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that any of the accused persons had committed the offence of forgery. The production of the certified copy is only production of secondary evidence and in a case of forgery, that is insufficient. In the absence of the primary evidence on record viz. the original of the document that is allegedly forged, the court below cannot be found fault with having Crl.R.P.1396/2004 - 3 - acquitted the accused persons. At any rate, there is no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, however, clarifying that the impugned judgment and this order confirming the same will not, in any manner, impair the rights and contentions of the parties in the civil suit between them. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. skr/3/6/08 Crl.R.P.1396/2004 - 4 -