VISWANATHA ASARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the ninth accused. Nine persons were charged for offences under Sections 489 (A), 489 (B), 489 (C) and 489 (D) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted all the accused of the offences under Sections 489 (A) and 489 (B ). It. acquitted accused 1 to 6 of offences under Sections 489 (C) and 489 (D ). However, it convicted accused 7 and 9 of offences under those sections.

(2.) THE seventh accused did not prefer any appeal. THE ninth accused preferred an appeal and on appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed by judgment dated 18th December, 1981, by the Additional sessions Judge of Tirunelveli. It is against the said judgment that the present revision has been preferred.

(3.) I shall now turn to scrutinize whether the mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer would fulfil the necessary requirements to corroborate the sole evidence of the Investigating Officer. In the first place, the mahazar Ex. P-69 is not in Form 95. But, if at least it contained all the details indicated in Form 95, the same could be accepted. In the present case, very serious defects are noticed. Below the mahazar are found four signatures without indication why and in what capacity they have affixed their signatures. The order of the Magistrate on the mahazar is not found as required. There is no mention that the mahazar was prepared in triplicate and that the duplicate copy has been sent back by the Magistrate with his order thereon for being pasted in the book. So, Ex. P-69 does not possess the character of authenticity which is required for being worth of reliance and that important document becoming unreliable, the deposition of the investigating Officer is deprived of the corroboration which is essential to sustain it.