GOPALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner/A1 to undergo: rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 465 I.P.C.; 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 467 I.P.C; 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C.; one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 423 I.P.C.; three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 420 I.P.C.; and one year imprisonment for the offences under Section 120(B) I.P.C.

(2.) THE factual matrix in this case is as follows: Gopalan (A1) is the elder brother of Baskara Nadar(P.W.1). Baskara Nadar (P.W.1) owns five cents of land in Survey No.265/5 situate in Ezhuthesam Village in Kanyakumari District in Tamil Nadu. A1 with the objective of usurping the said property of his brother, conspired with 9 others and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, prepared a sale deed (Ex.P7) as if Baskara Nadar (P.W.1) has sold the said land to A1 for valuable consideration and had the sale deed registered as Doc. No.470 of 1994 on 04.04.1994 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ottasekaramangalam in the adjoining Kerala State. One Kunju Perumal (who was shown as A6 but he had died during trial) impersonated as Baskara Nadar before the Sub Registrar for registration of the document. Thereafter, on 16.12.1994 it is alleged by the complainant (P.W.1), that Gopalan (A1), his son Suresh Kumar (A9), Kesavan (A2), Seriyan (A3) Lakshmanan (A4), Thangappan (A5), Kunju Perumal (deceased) entered into the said land and started laying the foundation. When the complainant knew about it, he went to the land and when he asked them to stop the work, the accused intimidated the complainant and chased him away. The complainant went to the local police station and lodged a complaint. Initially, no F.I.R. was registered by the police, and only an enquiry was conducted. During the course of police enquiry, A1 came to the police station and produced a photo copy of the sale deed dated 04.04.1994 purported to have been executed by the complainant in his favour and claimed that the land belongs to him. Only then, the complainant knew about this fact. Ultimately on 09.01.1995 Baskara Nadar (P.W.1) gave a written complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District narrating the incident. On the directions of the Superintendent of Police, the District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, registered a case on 01.04.1995 in Crime No.9 of 1995 under Section 423, 467, 468 I.P.C. against Gopalan Nadar (A1) and six others. The police took up investigation and examined the Sub Registrar of Ottasekaramangalam Sub Registrar's Office and collected copies of the sale deed. The police was not able to recover the original sale deed dated 04.04.1994 which was naturally in the custody of A1 as he is the beneficiary. The police had only a photo copy of the said sale deed which was produced by A1 during the course of enquiry about which I have referred to above. The police obtained the finger prints of all the accused, specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused, finger prints of the complainant Baskara Nadar (P.W.1) and his signature also. The police sent the signature obtained from the accused and P.W.1 along with the signature found in the photo copy of the sale deed to the handwriting expert for comparison and report. The police obtained the finger print register from the office of the Sub Registrar, Ottasekaramangalam and sent the same, along with the finger prints of the accused and Baskaran (P.W.1) to the finger print expert (P.W.14) for comparison and report. The report of the handwriting expert disclosed that the signature in the copy of the sale deed is not that of P.W.1 but is that of Kunju Perumal. Similarly, the finger print Expert (P.W.14) has stated in his evidence as well in his report that the finger print found in the finger print register maintained in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ottasekaramangalam, relating to the registration of Document No.470 of 1994 does not tally with the finger print of Baskara Nadar (P.W.1) but tallies with the finger print of Kunju Perumal. The police examined other witnesses. The police completed the investigation and filed a final report against ten accused for the offences of registering a bogus sale deed on 04.04.1994 and for the incident that took place on 16.12.1994. Kunju Perumal was also arrayed as one of the accused in the police report but during the trial he had died. The accused involved in the fabrication of the sale deed were charged for offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 423, 420 and 471 I.P.C. and the accused who were involved in the incident on 16.12.1994 were charged by the police for offence under Sections 447, 352, 506(ii) r/w. 148 I.P.C. The trial Court framed charges for all the offences against the ten accused. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 59 exhibits. The accused when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating circumstances. On behalf of the accused, five witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked. The trial Court by judgment dated 29.04.2004 acquitted all the accused for offence under Sections 147, 447, 506(i), 352 r/w. 149 I.P.C. This is with regard to the incident that took place on 16.12.1994. Coming to the registration of bogus sale deed on 04.04.1994, the trial Court convicted Gopalan (A1), Thangappan (A7) and Muthunayagam (A8) for those offences alone. The first Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, aggrieved by which Gopalan (A1) is now before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition.

(3.) MR .Pinaygash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the offence in this case took place in Ottasekaramangalam which is in Kerala State and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai in Tamil Nadu before whom the trial was conducted does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, he contended that the entire conviction and sentence is vitiated. In order to appreciate his contention, it may be relevant to examine the provisions to Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 179 of the Code reads as under: