IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.L.P..No. 885 of 2010() -------------------------- CC.57/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM .................... (S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ GOPI, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KOTHACHIRATHADATHIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA KARA, KUTTEMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.K.UNNI VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, PUTTANAKUDY HOUSE, VADATTUPARA KARA, KUTTEMPUZHA VILLAGE,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. PLADIS, S/O.FRANCIS, KONATHU HOUSE, VADATTUPARA KARA, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKOLAM TALUK (NOW RESIDING AT MUNDELI KARA, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBOOR TALUK) 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. L.P. No. 885 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 8th September, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for Special Leave to file appeal. 2. This petition is filed to grant special leave for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate Court in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The offences alleged in the complaint are 465, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of IPC. The case of the complainant is that the accused in furtherance of common intention committed forgery of a sale deed and also an agreement. 3. The complainant adduced evidence on his side. PWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked in support of the contentions. The trial court, on analysis of the evidence adduced, found that there is no material to convince the court that the signatures in the sale deed and Ext.P2 agreement for sale are false. [Crl.L.P.No.885/2010] 2 4. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence regarding the signature put in the document without comparing the signatures. The petitioner is also not granted an opportunity to send the documents for expert opinion. These are the main grounds. 5. On going through the order under challenge, it is clear that the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that Exts. P1 and P2 are forged. According to complainants, accused falsely created sale deeds and complainant's mother's signature was forged in the document. The complainant alleged that the sale deed had not been signed by his mother. 6. The original document, which is allegedly forged, is not produced before court. Ext.P1 is only the certified copy of the sale deed. The complainant had filed petition for production of the original of Ext.P1 at the pre-charge stage of the trial but the court dismissed the petition on reserving the right of the [Crl.L.P.No.885/2010] 3 complainant, to seek production of the document at a later stage of the case. But no attempt was made by the complainant to produce the document and to obtain the expert opinion on the signature in dispute. It is also seen from the judgment that the mother of the complainant whose signature is allegedly forged by the accused is also not examined. 7. The court also observed that it has come out from the evidence that the said lady had not made any complaint regarding false creation of the document. It was also found by the trial court that Ext.P3 is a judgment in a suit relating to the same properties covered by the sale deed, Ext.P1 and that there is absolutely no finding or observation in Ext.P3 that Ext.P1 is a forged one. 8. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish that the original sale deed (of which Ext.P1 is a certified copy) is forged by the accused. I also find no infirmity in the findings regarding execution of Ext.P2 agreement which is executed between the accused. Learned counsel for [Crl.L.P.No.885/2010] 4 petitioner was not able to substantiate that the relevant findings are erroneous or unsustainable. 9. In the absence of expert opinion, it was further held that the contention that Ext. P1 document has not been executed by the person named therein, cannot be accepted. I do not find any reason to grant leave to file appeal. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.