THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2417 of 2011 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioners herein, those who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 774 of 2010 registered for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Brief facts of the revision are that: Petitioners have preferred a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No. 1922 of 2011 invoking the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram by an elaborate order dated 3.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3. Heard and perused the entire record placed before this Court. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court should have considered that the petitioners are no way connected with the crime and there is no ingredients to attract an offence under Section 420 IPC, because the petitioners have no intention to deceive the complainant at the inception; the entire land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioners through a valid document and the petitioners are the owners of the land in question; the sale deed is in favour of the petitioners herein to establish that the petitioners are the owners of the property, but the trial Court has dismissed the discharge petition; that the pattedar pass books and other revenue records are irrelevant to establish the ownership of the property regarding the land concerned. The further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not having any common intention to deceive the complainant at the inception. It is a matter posted for trial and further when knowing fully well that the revenue records like pattedar passbooks and other entries in the revenue records forged and fabricated one, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not having any intention to deceive the complainant at this stage does not arise. Hence, the said contentions are rejected. 2nd point is that the petitioners have produced the relevant documents showing that the sale deeds are in their favour. This Court is of the definite view that since the accused person who is having sale agreement or sale deeds in their favour executed by some other persons that itself will not create any ownership to the persons concerned. If the said proposition is accepted, anybody can become the owner of the property by way of execution of sale deed in the name of other persons. With an intention to avoid this kind of malpractices, the Legislature has executed the following procedure: Whenever the properties are transferred, the same should be entered into the revenue records to show that the persons, who claimed to be the purchaser by way of registered sale deed to change their names in the records to show that they are the owners of the property. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners are able to produce some documents to show that they are the owners of the property., But, at the same time, the revenue records maintained by the authorities concerned does not disclose the petitioners as owners of the property and further more, the said revenue records discloses that the said properties are Government properties. The learned trial Judge also observed in his order that the reasons for dismissal of the petition are as follows: “The contention of the prosecution is that those documents are not genuine one and those documents are fake documents and they have obtained the certificates by issuing the fake documents and also submitted the same fake documents to the Union Bank of India only to cheat them. For that a detailed full fledged trial has to be conducted to elicit whether the documents submitted by the petitioners to the Bank authorities are genuine one or not. But, at this stage, without conducting any enquiry into the matter, only basing on the Photostat copies of the documents filed by the petitioners, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there is no prima facie case against them.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge and the order of dismissal by the learned trial Judge is valid in law and the same cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 7.12.2011 CHV