IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1350 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.210/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA CC.139/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- ARUN, S/O.THOMAS MATHEW, PALMKORT VEETTIL, OLAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.177/01 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION). 2. V.K. CHACKO, S/O. KURUVILA, VELLARINGATTU VEEDU, OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZAH (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT 2 AS PER ORDER DATED 6-4-2009 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 338 OF 2009 ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R. P. No. 1350 of 2006 ````````````````` Dated: 6-4-2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 139 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muttom, Thodopuzha, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C., challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 17-1-2002 the revision petitioner/ accused made P.W.1, the de facto complainant, believe that a fixed deposit of P.W.1 in the Syndicate Bank, Thodupuzha Branch , for Rs. 1,00,000/- would mature on 17-1-2002 and the said amount could be credited to his savings bank account and accordingly after putting signature differently on a cheque leaf issued to the accused from the Syndicate Bank, Thodupuzha on an account maintained by him in the bank, the accused delivered a cheque Crl.R. P. No. 1350 of 2006 -:2:- of Rs. 1,00,000/- to P.W.1 and borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from P.W.1 on the strength of the said cheque. When the cheque was presented before the drawee bank it was disohonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused and also for the reason that the signature of the drawer on the cheque is different from the specimen signature of the account holder maintained in the bank. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 12 documents as Exts. P1 to P12. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those Crl.R. P. No. 1350 of 2006 -:3:- circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 26th July 2004 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Secs. 420 and 468 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run consecutively. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Sec. 420 I.P. C. and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 210 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha , the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 21-01-2006 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by reducing the imprisonment to one year each instead of three years. Hence, this Revision. 6. Pending this Revision, the de facto complainant has compounded the offence of cheating with the revision petitioner. A joint petition seeking permission to compound both the offences under Sections 420 and 468 is filed. Since the offence Crl.R. P. No. 1350 of 2006 -:4:- punishable under Sec. 468 is a non-compoundable offence, the composition is accepted only so far as it relates to Sec. 420 I.P.C. . The said compensation will have the effect of acquitting the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Sec. 420 I.P.C. in view of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. 7. What now survives for consideration is whether the conviction under Sec. 468 I.P.C. can survive. In order to attract the offence punishable under Sec. 468 I.P.C. the accused should have made a false document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made signed, sealed , executed, transmitted or affixed by him or under authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. The de facto complainant when examined before Court, has unambiguously admitted that the cheque was signed by the revision petitioner in his presence. To the said effect is the allegation in the complaint also. When the ingredients of Sec. 464 I.P.C. are not attracted, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner committed forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable under Crl.R. P. No. 1350 of 2006 -:5:- Sec. 468 I.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C. is set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the said offence. In the result, this Revision is allowed acquitting the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 I.P.C. Amounts, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani.