IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 561 of 2004(A) ------------------------------ CRA.170/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.91/1994 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):APPELLANT/FIRST ACCUSED. ------------------------------------------------------- K.T.SHIHABUDHIN, S/O.K.T.MOHAMMED, SUDHIR MANZIL, KOLATHODIKA, KALLEMPADAM, NILAMBUR P.O. MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/6/2010 ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 2503 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2203/04 IN CRL.R.P.561/04 DISMISSED 3/6/2010 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.R.P.No. 561/2004 & 2503 OF 2003 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of June,2010 ORDER Petitioners the accused in C.C.91/1994 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri were convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 205, 193, 465 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. The second accused was convicted additionally for the offence under section 471 of Indian Penal Code also. Though petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Manjeri learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. First accused filed Crl.R.P.561/2004 and second accused Crl.R.P.2503/2003 challenging the conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 is that petitioner affixed his signature in Ext.P2 compounding petition only on the threat of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 and as he was threatened he appeared before the Magistrate as Mohammed Salim, the complainant in C.C.53/1994 and in such circumstances the conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel argued that in any case leniency may be shown in the sentence as he is an autorikshaw driver and it was only due to the compulsion he committed the offences. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 argued that there is no evidence to prove that the signature of the complainant in C.C.53/1994 is forged, as Mohammad Salim, though cited as CW1 was not examined. It was argued that except the sworn statement of the first accused, Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 3 there is no material to prove that the signature in the compounding petition is not that of the complainant Mohammed Salim and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. 4. Petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 was the sole accused in C.C.53/1994 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was a case charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram on the allegation that petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 committed the offences under sections 341, 323, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant in that case was Mohammed Salim. Learned counsel submitted that he was only one of the injured. Whatever it be, Ext.P2 compounding petition dated 30.9.1994 shows that when the case was called, petitioner produced Ext.P2 before the learned Magistrate as a compounding petition signed by him along with the injured Mohammed Salim. The evidence of PW1 the Bench Clerk with Ext.P2 establish that when the learned Magistrate got suspicious, while recording the sworn statement of Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 4 the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 who appeared as the complainant in C.C.53/1994 Mohammed Salim, it was verified with PW2, Assistant Public Prosecutor and thereafter a detailed statement of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 was recorded. Ext.P2 shows that the said petitioner disclosed to the learned Magistrate that he is not Mohammed Salim but he signed in Ext.P2 as Mohammed Salim and it was at the instance of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 he signed in Ext.P2 as Mohammad Salim and he was threatened by the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003, to appear before the learned Magistrate as the complainant Mohammad Salim and due to the threat he impersonated before the Magistrate as Mohammad Salim. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 argued that there is no evidence to prove that signature of Mohammad Salim seen in Ext.P2 is not that of Mohammad Salim but a forged signature put by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004, as Mohammad Salim was not Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 5 examined though cited as witness, on the facts and evidence I cannot agree. Petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 was examined by the learned Magistrate when Ext.P2 was presented before him and that sworn statement unambiguously and conclusively establish that the signature seen in Ext.P2 as that of Mohammed Salim was put by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004. I find the non-examination of Mohammad Salim is immaterial as far as the case is concerned. Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and found that petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 impersonated himself as Mohammad Salim and signed as Mohammad Salim in Ext.P2. The evidence also establish that it was the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 who made the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004, to sign as Mohammad Salim and also to appear before the learned Magistrate as Mohammad Salim by impersonation and it is the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 who made use of Ext.P2 which is proved to be a forged document as Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 6 genuine in the judicial proceedings. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004, the first accused, for the offence under sections 205, 193, 465 and 468 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and correct. So also conviction of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 the second accused for the offences under sections 205, 193, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is also perfectly legal and correct. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be excessive. Petitioners had forged the signature of the complainant and impersonated and attempted to make the Magistrate act upon the forged document as a compounding petition to close the case. It is a very serious matter effecting the administration of criminal justice and warrants severe sentence. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 7 sentence also. Revisions are dismissed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri is directed to execute the sentence. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on 2.7.2010. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006