RANGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the 4th accused in C.C.839/2009 before the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - Chittur. He is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the court below on C.M.P.No.6483/2017 dated 19.03.2018, where by the request of the 2nd respondent/complainant to cause his thumb impression to be compared with the thumb impression contained in Sale Deed No.569/2008 dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure - A2) was allowed.

(2.) The 2nd respondent was the owner in possession of 33.5 cents of land obtained by him as per a registered Sale Deed dated 20.02.1990. The 2nd accused in C.C.839/2009 is the power of attorney holder of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd accused executed Annexure - A2 sale deed in favour of the 1st accused acting as the power of attorney holder. The case of the 2 nd respondent is that the execution of sale deed aforesaid was without his knowledge or consent, especially after he has cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of the 2 nd accused. His further case is that when he came to know of execution of Annexure - A2 and scrutinized the papers, he could gather that his photograph and purported thumb impression were affixed in the original sale deed without his knowledge but playing fraud upon him. According to him, he was neither present on 11.03.2008 before the Sub Registrar nor did he affix his thumb impression. The petitioner is the scribe who prepared Annexure - A2. In order to substantiate his case that the Annexure - A2 was fraudulently created by the accused by impersonation, he requested the court below to cause original of Annexure - A2 sale deed to be produced from the custody of subsequent alienee by name Sivaprakash to whom the property was assigned by the 1 st accused. The 1st accused seems to have parted with the property in favour of Sivaprakash by virtue of a sale deed No.1713/2009.

(3.) Despite repeated efforts having been taken to secure production of original of Annexure - A2 from Sivaprakash, the document could not be secured before the court. The complainant, therefore, requested the court below to forward the notarized copy of the Annexure - A2 to a finger print expert and cause the purported finger print in the said sale deed to be compared with his own finger print. The application was heavily opposed by all the accused and the court below after hearing both sides passed the impugned order on 19.03.2018 allowing application.