IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 417 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.680/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARKLIST CASES), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ANIL.V.S., KARTHIKA, VALLUNNI, MAVARTHALAKONAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY AND TRUSTEE, SREE PULICKAL BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM TRUST BALAKRISHNA BUILDINGS, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.417 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner, Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Respondent No.1 faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-V (Special Court for Marklist Cases), Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.No.680 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial learned magistrate found that charge against respondent No.1 is not proved and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that there is sufficient evidence to show that the disputed entry in the minutes book was entered by respondent No.1 after the members present had signed the minutes. It is also contended that PW4 was disbelieved by the court below for no reason whatsoever. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that petitioner in this revision is not even a member of the trust board and that after the death of the original complainant petitioner has preferred this revision. 3. Case in short is that original complainant, respondent No.1 and others were trustees of a devaswom trust. Respondent No.1 was the secretary of the trust board. One P.R.Krishnan Nair had given a letter to the trust board Crl.R.P.No.417/2009 2 concerning the petitioner. Meeting of the trust board was convened on 14.1.1995 for discussion of certain other matters. Letter given by the said P.R.Krishnan Nair was not included in the agenda for discussion. It was stated in the meeting that the said letter need not be discussed in the meeting on that day. But it was seen later that the minutes contained an entry as if the letter was discussed. That, according to the original complainant is a forgery made by respondent No.1, secretary of the trust board. PWs 1 to 4 were examined to prove the charge. Original complainant neither summoned the original minutes book allegedly forged nor produced an admissible copy of it to prove the alleged forgery as the case may be. Instead respondent No.1 produced Ext.D5, photocopy of the minutes of the meeting on 14.1.1995. According to respondent No.1 all the decisions taken in the meeting are truly and correctly recorded in the minutes and after the minutes was recorded the members present except the original complainant who walked out of the meeting have signed the minutes. 4. Original complainant gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the alleged forgery. PW2 stated that he saw respondent No.1 making the disputed entry in the minutes book. PW3 was chairman of the trust board. He also referred to the alleged forgery and claimed that Shri P.Gopala Pillai, another Crl.R.P.No.417/2009 3 member of the trust board had not attended the meeting and instead, Shri P.Gopala Pillai came at the fag end of the meeting and signed the minutes. PW4 is another member who also spoke to the alleged incident. It is seen from Ext.D5 that all the members of the trust board except the original complainant have signed the minutes after the disputed entry. So far as original complainant is concerned, it is stated that he had walked out from the meeting. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in his signature not appearing in the minutes book. It has also come out in evidence that there was litigation between the parties concerning the administration of the devaswom. So far as PW4 is concerned, it is seen from Ext.D1, copy of the minutes of the meeting on 14.11.1988 that PW4 who was entrusted with construction of the compound wall for the temple failed to do so and the original complainant was asked to initiate legal action against him. According to respondent No.1, PW4 was enmical to him for that reason. Going by Ext.D5, prima facie it is not possible to contend that there is any such forgery. It is not as if respondent No.1 had no authority to prepare the minutes. For, he was the secretary of the trust board during the relevant time entrusted with the responsibility to prepare minutes. It is also pertinent to note that as I already stated, original complainant did not summon the original minutes book or produced a copy of the minutes book Crl.R.P.No.417/2009 4 allegedly forged. Learned magistrate has considered the relevant circumstances to hold that allegation of forgery is not proved. That being a finding of fact based on evidence on record, no interference is required in revision. Resultantly, revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks