THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE 0G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1144 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against judgment delivered in C.C.No.173 of 1999 dated 16.4.2003 on the file of the Court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad acquitting the accused therein for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. On 20.8.1999 the complainant R.B.Jitender Raj lodged report to the Police in which it is stated that he is the natural guardian of Master Hitesh Kumar and he is the landlord of H.No.8093, M.C.H.No.5-1-14 to 6- 1-69 situated at R.P. Road, Secunderabad and the building was acquired by him through a Will Deed executed by his grand father by name Benrulal in the year 1985 and one Deepchand Jain who worked as Accountant in his shop was residing in three rooms of the said house (ground floor) on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and in the year 1985 Deepchand died and after his demise, his son and son-in-law (accused) occupied the portion, but failed to pay the rent. Further, to his surprise, the accused prepared some forged documents with bogus stamps as if his father-in-law Deepchand was given the property in the year 1957 and Deepchand vide Will Deed dated 7.1.1984 gave the property to him (the accused). On enquiry, the said documents were found to be forged and fabricated with an intention to grab the property. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked and the trial Court after considering the matter, found the accused not guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and acquitted him under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. and therefore the present revision is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court dismissed the charges made against the accused on the sole ground that the original sale deed and other documents were not produced in support of Exs.P1 to P9 marked and in fact the accused was in possession of those documents but, however, on the other hand the accused produced some documents marked as Ex.B1 to B8 in O.S.No.104 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the defacto-complainant for declaration of title in respect of the same property which was in fact decreed as prayed for and therefore those documents can be called for, for the purpose of deciding the charges levelled in the criminal case subject to setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused has not much opposed the plea to remand the matter. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there for setting aside the acquittal recorded in favour of the accused in the calendar case. I have gone through the record. The judgment rendered by the trial Court acquitting the accused is based upon non-production of the original documents in question. Further, a copy of the judgment filed in the said suit clearly reveals that those documents were produced by the accused in that suit being the defendant therein. Therefore, the prosecution got an opportunity to take necessary steps to call for the records and adduce necessary evidence for the purpose of establishing the charges levelled against the accused in the criminal case. Unless the originals are called the question of forgery cannot be decided. Producing copies of the same is not suffice here. It has to be seen that justice is not only done to the accused, but also to the accuser. By virtue of Section 401 read with Section 386 Cr.P.C., the order of the trial Court can be set aside with a direction to conduct further inquiry in the matter, in the interest of justice. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to take necessary steps to call for the original documents from the suit O.S.No.104 of 1999 on the file of Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consider the matter afresh giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence, if required and dispose of the same uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court above. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 29.7.2011 DA