SYED SAMSUDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the conviction for an offence under Section 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. and sentence of one year R.I. in each count with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each count in default 4 months S.I. to run concurrently. According to the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence. According to him, the lower Court has only convicted on the basis of the Expert's opinion without any corroborative evidence given by any of the witnesses. According to the petitioner, he was the power agent of the de facto complainant. The Power of Attorney was registered in the year 1994 itself. Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 are the original and the photocopy of the same. The Sale Deeds are executed after P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 purchased the property under exhibits Exhibit P-2, Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9. The sale has been executed in the year 1997 itself. Thereafter, for the first time, the complaint has been made only in the year 2004.

(2.) It is also made clear by him that, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 the purchasers have categorically stated that they have met the de facto complainant before purchase and ascertained her right over the properties and then purchased the property and hence, she was aware of the sale transaction. The brokers were examined as P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 and they have also ascertained that they took the purchasers to the de facto complainant and they received commission both from the de facto complainant and the purchasers. Therefore, it is not the case that the de facto complainant was not aware of the sale transaction.

(3.) Taking into consideration at a later point of time, they have come forward with the present complaint much later in the year 2004, infact the one person who is very vital to the case is the husband of the de facto complainant who is neither been cited as witness nor examined on account of the de facto complainant, when infact P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 the sons have categorically stated in their evidence that they are not aware of any of the transaction and it is only their father who knew about this, therefore their evidence also could not be taken. Even P.W. 1 herself have stated that she does not know directly about the complaint, she has only put her signature and only her husband knows everything. Only because of the Expert's evidence, it is opined that a signature found in the Power of Attorney as well as the signature obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation differs and as the agent he has been held responsible which according to law is not sustainable.