Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shobha Ramachandran vs The State Represented By on 19 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15636
CRL.RP No. 1528 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHOBHA RAMACHANDRAN,
WIFE OF B. RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRI. KRISHNA,
KURCHI GUDDE, KULAI POST,
KULAI VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
"VENKATESH NILAYA",
KATLA MALLAMAR, KRISHNAPURA ROAD,
SURATHKAL - 575 014,
MANGALORE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by B
K (BY SRI. S RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka AND:
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SURATHKAL POLICE STATION,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 6.10.2016 AND SENTENCE DATED 27.10.2016 PASSED BY
THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.255/2013 AND
ACQUIT THE REVISION PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 471 OF
CPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE R.P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15636
CRL.RP No. 1528 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.2 who is convicted for the offences
punishable under 471 of IPC, is before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the de-facto
complainant had purchased the Moolageni right in respect of non-
agricultural house site bearing No.171-16 (part) measuring 10 cents
situated at Iddya village under sale deed dated 23.04.1975. Thereafter,
he filed the declaration before the Land Tribunal and got it confirmed by
the order dated 20.02.1986. The de-facto complainant married accused
No.4, the daughter of accused No.1 in the year 1964, which ended in
divorce. Accused No.2 is the daughter of accused No.1 and accused
No.1 is the mother-in-law of de-facto complainant. That, on 08.11.2001,
the de-facto complainant had filed an application before the village
accountant for furnishing the record of rights in respect of the subject
property. But he was informed that another application in respect of the
same property was received from accused No.2, and after verification,
he came to know that sale deed dated 01.08.2001 was executed by
accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 by forging the signature of the
de-facto complainant on the power of attorney.
3. The prosecution to prove its case has examined P.Ws.1 to
6, and exhibited documents at Exs.P.1 to 19. The trial Court passed the
judgment of acquittal relying on the report submitted by the Forensic
NC: 2024:KHC:15636
Science Laboratory to the effect that signature found in the power of
attorney does not belong to any of the accused. The First Appellate
Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record confirmed the
judgment of acquittal insofar as it relates to accused Nos.3 and 4, and
dismissed the appeal as abated as against accused No.1, and passed
the judgment, convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 471 of IPC stating that accused No.2 has made use of the sale
deed as genuine document. Against which, present revision petition is
filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for respondent-State.
5. Admittedly, the registered sale deed was executed by
accused No.1 on the basis of power of attorney alleged to have been
executed by the de-facto complainant in his favour. The Forensic
Science Laboratory report indicated that the signature found on the
power of attorney does not belong to any of the accused, and relying on
the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the trial Court
acquitted the petitioner/accused No.2. There is no allegation that
accused No.2 connived with accused No.1 in creating the fabricated
power of attorney, and except the allegation she purchased the subject
property under registered sale deed executed by accused No.1 on the
basis of the fabricated document, there is no allegation of conniving with
NC: 2024:KHC:15636
other accused in creating the power of attorney. Section 471 of IPC
states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
(document or electronic record) which he knows or has reasons to
believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished
in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic
record). In the instance case, the allegations of making use the forged
document is against accused No.1 and not against accused No.2, except
the allegation that she is the beneficiary under the fabricated document.
Therefore, in the absence of the essential elements to constitute the
commission of offence under Section 471 of IPC, the impugned
judgment of conviction passed by the Appellate Court is not sustainable
in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The revision petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order of
sentence dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Principal
Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.255/2013
convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 471 of IPC and sentencing to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay a fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is hereby set
aside.
iii. Petitioner/accused No.2 is acquitted of the aforesaid
offence.
NC: 2024:KHC:15636
iv. Bail bond if any executed stands cancelled.
v. Petitioner/accused No.2 is permitted to withdraw the
fine amount Rs.50,000/- deposited before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GPG
CT:SNN
