T A USMAN Vs. A SIDDARAMAIAH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and order acquitting respondents for the charge under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC on a trial held by Addl. CMM, Bangalore City.

(2.) The appellant who is the complainant before the Trial Court is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.20/11 measuring 16 guntas at Kumbalugud village, Kengeri Hobli and had purchased the same on 19.09.1985. He was in possession of the said property and it is his case that accused No.1 (respondent No.1) created a fictitious document by forging the signature and on the basis of general power of attorney said to have sold the said property to accused No.2 on 08.06.1998 with a dishonest intention to make wrong gain and thereby cheated the complainant.

(3.) After filing of the complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance and issue summons to the respondents. It appears that evidence of PW1 was recorded and as PW1 was not available for cross examination, warrant was issued. An application was filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. The charge was framed against the respondent-accused on 23.03.2009 for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC and the matter was posted on 13.04.2009 for recording the evidence of complainant. On the said day, complainant was absent, therefore, the Trial Court took evidence as closed and recorded the statement of respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Argument was heard on 17.04.2009 and the Trial Court dismissed the case on 25.04.2009 acquitting the accused for the said offences. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed. The appellant has filed two applications one under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking production of documents and another application under Section 87 of Cr.P.C. to summon the witnesses.