THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.36 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2007 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Narasaraopet, where-under the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.163 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vinukonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') i.e., Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 468 IPC, and simple imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 471 IPC and further simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Section 420 IPC, was confirmed except to the extent of reducing the quantum of sentence of simple imprisonment for two years to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 468 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, who worked as Village Karanam of Jangalapalli village and also a document writer, is said to have induced PWs.2 and 3 for supply of fake pattas for the house sites and received consideration of Rs.500/- each and this was published in Eenadu daily newspaper in District Edition and thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vinukonda, has given a complaint and after conducting investigation, the police have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. For which, the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilt of all the offences and in the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the findings of guilt. But, however, reduced the sentence. Aggrieved by that, the present revision is filed. 4. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has forged Exs.P.3 to P.5 said to have been given to PWs.2 and 3 by taking Rs.500/- each? 2) Whether the prosecution has alternatively proved that the offence under Section 471 IPC is attracted? 3) Whether the accused is guilt of the offence under Section 420 IPC? 5. POINTS: The case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who have categorically stated that they have paid money to the accused and they have obtained pattas for the house sites and they are also said to be residing there. Ex.P.5 is the original patta said to have been given to PW.2 and Ex.P.4 is the patta, which is said to have been given to PW.3. As can be seen from the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3, there is not of much motive for them to implicate the accused in the crime. The evidence of PW.1, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant time during the period 2002 to 2004, goes to show that on 19.11.2002 a news item has been published in Eenadu Newspaper about the sale of fake pattas and thereafter, he gave the complaint. He verified the pattas said to have been given to PWs.2 and 3 but no such pattas were said to have been issued and consequently they are not genuine documents. He also opined that the signatures on those pattas do not belong to the Mandal Revenue Officer G.Venkateshwar Rao, who is said to have worked during that period. Considering his evidence, the Courts below have accepted the guilt of the accused. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the competent person to deny the signatures on Exs.P.3 to P.5 is Venkateshwar Rao and during the course of investigation or at the trial, he was not examined and no reason was also forthcoming for his non-examination. According to him, there is no material to show that the accused has fabricated or forged the pattas attracting to offence under Section 468 IPC. Evidently, in order to sustain the conviction under Section 468 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the forgery or fabrication was committed by the accused. In the absence of any such evidence, it is very difficult to sustain the conviction for the offence under Section 468 IPC, and consequently, for the reason of non-examination of the alleged person, who is said to have issued the pattas and also for the reason that there is no material to show that the accused himself has forged documents, the conviction under Section 468 IPC is liable to be set aside. 7. The fact remains from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that the accused has given those pattas to them after taking money of Rs.500/- from each of them. The evidence of PW.1, which was supported from the record, clearly goes to show that those pattas were not genuine one and they are not relating to the records maintained by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, the inference is irresistible that these documents are fake and forged one and consequently, the offence under Section 471 IPC is squarely applicable to the facts of the case for the reason that the accused knowing that the documents are not genuine have used them as genuine and induced PWs.2 and 3 to part with money and delivered these documents and thereafter committed an act of cheating. Therefore, the conviction for the accused for the offence under Section 471 IPC and Section 420 IPC is sustainable and accordingly, the convictions are confirmed. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleaded for mercy. Taking into consideration the nature of the amount involved and also the conduct of the accused, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC is reduced to six months and it shall run concurrently with the offence under Section 420 IPC, which was imposed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The lower Court is directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrant for apprehension of the accused. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23-11-2011 INL