A.SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.643/2003 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The offences alleged against him by the police are under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that in 1994 the death of his father happened to be registered with wrong date, on the basis of wrong information furnished by him, and he did so with the object of winning a revenue proceeding regarding excess land. The prosecution alleges that the father of the accused in fact died before 1970, but in 1994 he caused such a false document by giving false information to the Registrar of Births and Deaths attached to the Local Panchayat. On enquiry the District Collector found that the death certificate is false, and accordingly he ordered enquiry. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector conducted an enquiry and found that the father of the accused in fact died before 1970. The Deputy Collector also verified a settlement deed executed by the mother of the accused in 1982. On the basis of the report of enquiry, and the findings made against the accused, the police registered crime against him, and after the investigation submitted final report in the trial court. Pending the proceedings the accused filed an application for discharge as Crl.M.P No.7270/2007. The learned Magistrate heard both sides and found that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation of forgery. Accordingly, the discharge application was allowed by order dated 10.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order the State preferred revision before the Court of Session, Palakkad as In revision, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order of discharge and directed the trial court to frame charge according to law. The said order of the Sessions Court dated 31.1.2014 in Crl.R.P No.13/2009 is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) ON hearing both sides and on a perusal of the orders passed by the courts below, and also the allegations in the final report, I find that the Criminal Revision Petition was rightly decided by the learned Sessions Judge. The definite prosecution allegation is that the accused gave false information to the Registrar of Births and Deaths regarding death of his father, and on the basis of such statement a wrong death certificate happened to be made. It is alleged that the actual date of death was before 1.1.1970, but with the object of claiming some property in the revenue proceeding the accused caused creation of a false death certificate by giving false information regarding the date of death, that it is 30.10.1994. The crime was registered on the basis of definite report of enquiry submitted by the Deputy Collector as directed by the District Collector. Whether the said report is acceptable, or what actually is the date of death, is a matter to be decided on trial. I find that the discharge application was mechanically dealt with and decided by the trial court. A very important document relied on by the prosecution is a settlement deed executed by the mother of the accused in 1992 wherein she called herself a widow. The said settlement deed will show that the death of her husband was years back but the son would not admit it, and he would say that his father died on 30.10.1994. In find primafacie material for framing proper charge against the accused. The report of enquiry made by the Deputy Collector and also the settlement deed executed by the mother of the accused in 1982 will show that the father of the accused died before 1.1.1970. But with the object of claiming some property in the revenue proceeding he gave false information to the Registrar of Births and Deaths and caused a death certificate with date of death as 30.10.1994. The prosecution has sufficient material to substantiate the said allegation. Whether those materials are in fact sufficient for a finding of guilty is a matter to be decided on trial. The trial court will have to decide whether the report of enquiry made by the Deputy Collector is acceptable or to what extend it is acceptable, and whether the statements made by the mother of the accused in the settlement deed are also acceptable.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge found that discharge order was wrongly made by the trial court, and accordingly the discharge order was rightly set aside. Of course the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the allegations, if at all acceptable, will not constitute the offence of forgery. This aspect will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that what is alleged is not forgery as such. From the allegations I find that the prosecution case is that a wrong death certificate happened to be made on the basis of a wrong statement or a false statement given by the accused. He knows well that his father died years back, or at any rate before 1.1.1970. But he gave a false statement that date of death is 30.10.1994, and accordingly he obtained a death certificate. If not forgery, the trial court will examine whether this will constitute fabrication of false document as defined under Section 192 IPC, punishable under the second part of Section 193 IPC. If the trial court finds that the actual offence involved is not forgery as such, but fabrication of false document as defined under Section 192 IPC proper charge can accordingly be framed under the second part of Section 193 IPC. The bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C will not apply in this case because the alleged document was not produced in a judicial proceeding. Thus I find that the trial court will have to consider and examine the whole prosecution records, including the FIR, the final report, the report of enquiry made by the Deputy Collector and also the settlement deed executed by the mother of the accused. If the trial court finds that the allegations are really substantiated by the materials produced by prosecution, the learned Magistrate will consider what exactly is the offence involved, and under what section of law charge can be framed. The trial court may not be misguided by the wrong sections quoted by the police in the final report. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However, the trial court is directed to consider the matter properly and judiciously, and frame a proper charge for the actual offence involved.