HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1385 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment delivered by the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 29.8.1997 in C.C. No. 1 of 1996 acquitting the 1st respondent-accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 468 of IPC. The facts which led to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case are as follows: On 12.9.1992, the revision petitioner-defacto complainant along with his mother and brothers opened a joint account bearing No. 15252 in Vasavi Cooperative Bank, Malakpet Branch for depositing joint rental amount and all the four brothers signed on the cheques to withdraw the amount if needed and Rs. 44,594/- was deposited upto 18.3.1994 and the accused was asked to collect the said amount and simultaneously on 24.11.1992, the accused opened another joint account in the name of his mother and brothers vide Account No. 15373 with an endorsement “Anyone can operate the account” by forging the relevant documents. Further the accused deposited large amounts in the second account to a tune of Rs.43,500/- and withdrew the same through three cheques totalling to Rs.63,100/-. The defacto complainant filed complaint before the trial Court, which was forwarded to the Malakpet Police Station for necessary investigation and report, following which, the case was registered in Crime No.14/94 under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 468 of IPC on the file of Malakpet P.S. Further the accused was arrested on 22.10.1994. Further therefore the accused is liable for punishment. After observing necessary formalities, charges under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 468 of IPC were framed against the accused and read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences. The defacto complainant in order to prove his case, got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws. 2 to 6 and also got marked Exs. P1 to P17 on his behalf. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material available, it is observed by the trial Court that no acceptable specimen signatures of the accused were obtained to compare them with Exs. P5 and P6, account opening forms and standard signatures of the accused, marked as Exs. P7 to P10 were taken in the presence of police officials and hence they cannot be taken into consideration and therefore, there is no material to establish the charges levelled against the accused and further therefore, he is entitled for acquittal, following which, he was accordingly acquitted and the present revision has been preferred. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defacto complainant that the prosecution witnesses spoke about the complicity of the accused in the case, but, the trial Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and came to erroneous conclusion and hence the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and necessary measures are to be taken. Therefore, what is to be seen is (1) whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence with regard to the charges levelled against the accused. 2) Whether the trial Court examined the matter properly and came to correct conclusions ? 3) Whether the acquittal recorded in favour of the accused is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the trial Court for further inquiry ? The defacto complainant, who got himself examined as P.W.1 deposed in support of his case. P.W.2 deposed that he worked in Vasavi Cooperative Bank, Malakpet and the accused opened account jointly along with his mother and brothers and after some time, the accused alone came with the signatures of others and opened the account subject to the terms “Anyone can operate the account” and he withdrew the amounts in the second account and subsequently, his brothers approached the bank and denied their signatures in the corresponding documents, i.e., Exs. P5 and P6. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that the police recorded his statement in writing and he could not say who introduced the account of the accused. He also deposed that he did not know about the existence of the first account. Further, P.W.3 deposed that about two years one month prior to his examination before the Court, in the presence of himself and another, the concerned police obtained the signatures of the accused, which were marked as Exs. P7 to P10 under Ex.P11, panchanama. P.W.4, handwriting expert was examined on behalf of the defacto complaint for the comparison of the specimen signatures and the disputed signatures. Further, P.W.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned deposed about the investigation of the case. Having gone through the record, I am of the opinion that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and further if necessary specimen signatures were not available, the trial court could have taken necessary steps for obtaining the signatures of other concerned parties for necessary comparison with the disputed signatures and report and taking into consideration relevant circumstances including the evidence of the bank officials with regards to who applied and withdrew the amount, the complicity of the accused can be decided and applying the relevant provisions of Section 401 read with 386 of Cr.P.C,. it is necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court for further consideration and for taking necessary steps as observed. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of acquittal recorded against the accused is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for proper consideration as per the observations made above. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 13.7.2011 pnb