Kerala High Court
Santhodharan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 150/2003 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC 721/1996 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:
SANTHODHARAN NAIR
S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, MANCHANTHAVILA VEEDU,
MARUTHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI. SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
2
ORDER
The accused No.3 came up against the
concurrent findings of conviction rendered by
both courts below for the offence punishable
under Sections 120B, 419, 465 and 468 IPC r/w
Section 34 IPC.
2. The main allegation is against accused
Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. The allegation is that they
have impersonated somebody else in the place of
PW1, the owner of the property, and had obtained
Ext.P4 sale deed in their favour. Earlier, this
property was given by accused Nos.1 and 2 to PW1
under Exhibit P17 sale deed. Later on, got it
back under Ext.P4 by playing impersonation.
Accused No.3 is the scribe who prepared the
draft of the sale deed. Nothing was brought to
the notice of this Court to show that he was
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
also an active participant of the alleged
impersonation or the act of commission of
offence. He was only a scribe who prepared a
draft for the sale deed. That alone will not be
sufficient to extend the criminal liability under
the abovesaid provisions unless there is active
participation on his part. There is no evidence,
either to show the active participation or even
any kind of participation in the alleged
commission of offence. He is not a party to the
alleged commission of the offence, except for the
fact that, he has prepared a draft sale deed.
The person who drafted the sale deed need not
aware of the identity of the person who executed
the document. It is for that purpose, provisions
were made so as to introduce the executant
before the Sub Registrar by two independent
witnesses by affixing their signatures in the
relevant place. Accused No.3 is not an
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
identifying witness or an introducing witness.
But he is a licensee to draft sale deeds, and
what he did is discharge of his function as a
licensee, and he need not know about the
identity of the person who executed the sale
deed or the beneficiary under the document. All
these are really alien to the function of the
scribe. The legal position would be different
when he acted as an attesting witness, an
introducing witness, or anything done beyond the
scope of his normal work. Necessarily, the
failure on the part of both the courts below to
consider the abovesaid aspects would be sufficient
grounds to interfere with the same in revision.
Hence, the finding of the guilt of the accused
and the conviction for the offence under Sections
120B, 419, 465 and 468 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC
will stand set aside. The accused was found not
guilty of the abovesaid offences and acquitted
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
under all charges and is set at liberty. Bail
bonds, if any, executed will stand cancelled.
The Crl.Revision Petition will stand
allowed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1962 OF 2007
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1962/2007
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure -I TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER DATED 30.10.2023.
Annexure -II TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
30.10.2023.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
