1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 447/2006 (Ganga Ram V/s State of Rajasthan) (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 4411/06 (DR.J.) (Smt. Lachha Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 25/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Vineet Jain for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, P.P. BY THE COURT:- The revision petition being S.B.Cr. Revision No.4411/06 (DR.J.) is barred by period of limitation of four days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Learned public prosecutor is directed to accept notice. He accepts the notice. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application seeking condonation of delay is accordingly disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. 2 Both these criminal revision petitions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. are directed against the order dated 2.5.2006 and 12.4.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Section 467, 468, 420, 471 and 120-B IPC. Since both the revisions involve common question of law and facts and arising out of one and same Criminal Regular case No.371/03, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petitions are heard and decided together. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the revision petition on behalf the petitioner No.2 Om Prakash in Criminal Revision No.4411/06 (DR.J.). In view of the statement of counsel for the petitioners, the revision petition filed by Om Prakash stands dismissed as not pressed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant Likmaram executed a power of attorney alleged to be in favour of co-accused Sohanlal on 27.5.1994 and the allegation against petitioner Gangaram is that he drafted the said power of attorney. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the power of attorney has been signed by complainant Likhmaram himself which is evident from the report 3 of the handwriting expert received from Forensic Science Laboratory dated 19.9.2003 and therefore, petitioner Gangaram has not committed any offence. The drafting of the power of attorney was at the instance of the complainant himself and the power of attorney bears the signatures of the complainant which has been affirmed by the handwriting expert report dated 19.9.2003 and therefore, there being no allegation of forging of any document, using it as genuine as valuable security or cheating. The trial court fell in error in not considering this material evidence while framing charge. It is further contended that so far as petitioner Lachha Devi is concerned, she is wife of co-accused Sohanlal in whose favour the alleged power of attorney stands and it was Sohanlal who on the basis of the power of attorney, transferred the land in favour of petitioner Lachha Devi and therefore, petitioner Lachhadevi has no knowledge as to whether the power of attorney was forged or genuine and she is a bonafide purchaser of the land from complainant Likhmaram may be through his power of attorney holder. Learned public prosecutor submits that there is sufficient material before the trial court that some of the signatures of the complainant were found to be forged from that of the admitted signatures. Learned public prosecutor further submits that the alleged power of attorney bears the signature of 4 complainant Likhmaram at Q1, Q2, Q4 and Q6 but signatures at Q3, Q5 and Q7 are not that of the complainant. I have carefully gone through the record. The alleged power of attorney has been typed over 30 rupees stamps i.e. one stamp of Rs.20/- and other of Rs.10/-. At page No.1, the signature Q1 and on reverse side of page No.1 signature Q2 at page No.2 signature Q4 and on reserve side of page No.2 the signature Q6 are the signatures of the complainant as per the report of the handwriting expert which states that disputed signatures Q1, Q2, Q4 and Q6 are in the handwriting of the person who wrote standard signatures marked as A1, A2 and R1 to R27. The signatures R1 to R27 are the admitted signature of complainant Likhmaram. The signature A1 and A2 are also admitted signature of complainant Likhmaram i.e. on the certificate issued by District Rural Development Authority, Bikaner on 7.3.1998 which bears the signature of the complainant. Thus, they are admitted signature of the complainant. Since the power of attorney bears the signature of the complainant at four places which are similar to that of the admitted signature of the complainant and allegation against petitioner Gangaram is that he drafted the power of attorney, in the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that he has not drafted the power of attorney at the instance and instructions of the complainant. There being no other evidence 5 showing any element of cheating or forging of the document. Drafting of document by petitioner Gangaram has not been disputed and since it bears the signature of the complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner forged the document. So far as petitioner Lachhadevi is concerned, the alleged power of attorney is of 1994 whereas the land has been transferred in the year 2002 and therefore, prima-facie it cannot be said at this stage that petitioner Smt. Lachhadevi had knowledge that the land has been transferred in her favour on the strength of forged power of attorney. In this view of the matter, the order framing charge against petitioner Gangaram and Lachhadevi cannot be sustained as there is no sufficient material to presume that these two petitioners committed the offence. So far as petitioner Om Prakash is concerned, he is witness to the power of attorney and therefore, learned counsel has rightly did not challenge the order framing charge against him. In the result, the revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner Gangaram and Lachhadevi is allowed. The orders impugned framing charge against petitioners Gangaram and Lachhadevi stand set aside and they are discharged of the offences. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp