IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRL.A.No. 551 of 2001(B) ------------------------ CC.359/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT -------------- ARUMUGHAN, S/O APPU, CHAKIRI, NAVILUMCHOLA, KIZHAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED --------------- 1. THANKACHAN @ THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, KAPPIYARTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, NELLIYAMPADOM, PARUVASSERY, AYAKKADU AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK 2. SOMAN CHAKO, S/O CHACKO, PARAKKAL HOUSE, AMBITTANTHARISU, KIZHAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.A.551/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The complainant in C.C.No.359/96 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur, is the appellant herein. The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 403, 405 and 468 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Court below acquitted the accused and hence the Revision after obtaining leave of this Court. 2. The case of the complainant in brief was that he had purchased a jeep from one Ravichandran. Second accused introduced the complainant to the first accused, first accused being the brother-in-law of the second accused. There was a talk of exchange of the jeep of the complainant with the Trax belonging to the first accused. An amount of Rs.60,000/- was fixed for the jeep and Rs.1,70,000/- was fixed for the Trax. Complainant was made to sign in blank papers. When the complainant failed to make the payment to the first accused, first accused demanded the Trax back. He took the Trax. But the jeep was not then returned to the complainant. With the aid of the blank papers obtained from Crl.A.551/2001 2 the complainant, the jeep was hypothecated with one Praveen Finance Corporation. First accused had therefore, committed forgery of the complainant's signature. Hence the complaint alleging the offence mentioned above. 3. Pws1 and 2 were examined, PW1 being the complainant. Court below appreciated the evidence and entered a finding of acquittal. Hence this appeal. 4. That there was a transaction of jeep and Trax belonging to the complainant and the first accused seems to be evidenced by the materials placed on record. But what seems to be significantly staring at the face of the complainant, when he alleges that his blank signed papers were used to obtain finance from a hire purchase company, is the lack of any effort on the part of the complainant to let in any evidence to show that the said finance Corporation had taken steps against the complainant or his vehicle in question. The Court below has noted that the complainant has accepted that the jeep was returned to him. The evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant might show Crl.A.551/2001 3 that the transaction of an exchange of two vehicles might have failed. This could be a cause of action for a civil suit. But the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the ingredients for an offence as such had been made out. I am in agreement with the Court below that the accused was entitled to be acquitted. Hence I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. Appeal is bereft of merit and hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs