MANILAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed, impugning the judgment of conviction delivered by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal 46/90.

(2.) The revision petitioner was found guilty under Sections 465, 467, read with 109, I.P.C. and thereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Questioning the above judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the above said appeal before the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who allowed the appeal by acquitting the revision petitioner. The defacto complainant, examined as PW 1, preferred a criminal revision before this Court, 85 of 1991. This Court, in the said revision, remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. The 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, after remand, found the revision petitioner guilty, under Section 471, I.P.C. and thereby sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years. Now the point is whether the judgment of the Sessions Judge, convicting the revision petitioner under Section 471, I.P.C. can be sustained.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, at the outset, raised a question of law, with regard to the conviction rendered by the Sessions Judge. His contention would be that originally the revision petitioner was found guilty under Sections 465 and 467 read with 109, I.P.C. and those convictions were set aside by the Sessions Judge. For the above offences alone, the charges were framed by the Magistrate, who tried the case. Therefore, even after the remand, the Sessions Judge could not convict the revision petitioner under Section 471, I.P.C. when the prosecution has not established as to, who has committed the forgery of the document. In support of this submission he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported at page 1786 (sic), 1992 SCC (Cri) L. T. Commr Bombay v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. There, the Supreme Court has held.