PARASMAL JAIN AND ORS. Vs. M. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revision Cases are filed against the orders dated 19.09.2014 passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 13048 to 13050 of 2014 in C.A. No. 135 of 2010 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dismissing the petitions filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the respondent/complainant is that the first petitioner/first accused, who is the elder brother, in conspiracy with other accused, with an intention to cheat the other co-heirs, has forged the signature of his mother and obtained legal heir certificate by omitting the name of four co-heirs and fabricated the document to usurp the shares of other co-heirs and to get wrongful gain from the joint family property. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against all the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 474 and 120-B IPC before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C. No. 4274 of 2013. After trial, the Trial Court found all the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each (for each count) and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each (for each count), in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment each (for each count). The sentences are ordered to run concurrently with each other. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have preferred Crl.A. No. 135 of 2014. Pending appeal, the petitioners have filed Crl.M.P. Nos. 13048 to 13050 of 2014 under Section 391 Cr.P.C., before the Appellate Court. Crl.M.P. No. 13048 of 2014 was filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioners to let in additional evidence by sending the signature of Mrs. Badan Bai on the application submitted for getting a legal heir certificate of late Manakchand Jamad marked as Ex.P.10, dated 05.10.2010 to Government Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai for obtaining handwriting expert opinion. Crl.M.P. No. 13049 of 2014 was filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioners to examine the Revenue Inspector-IV, Fort- Tondairpet Taluk, Chennai, who conducted enquiry for cancellation of the legal heir certificate Ex.P.16 issued excluding three daughters of late Tmt.Badan Bai. Crl.M.P. No. 13050 of 2014 was filed before the Appellate Court under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioners to examine the Sub-Registrar, who registered partition deed and release deed dated 16.12.2010 registered as Document Nos. 2624 and 2625 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Periamet. The Appellate Court, by orders dated 19.09.2014, dismissed the said petitions. Aggrieved against the same, these Criminal Revision Cases are filed.

(3.) Ms.Arthi Madhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even though, the petitioners cross-examined the complainant/P.W.1 and though, he was represented by Advocate, but, he was not effectively and properly represented by the Advocate. He would further add that the parties are relatives and that the signature of his mother Mrs. Badan Bai on the application submitted for getting the legal heir certificate of late Manakchand Jamad marked as Ex.P.10, dated 05.10.2010, alleged to have been misused and forged has not been sent to expert opinion and hence, seeking to permit the petitioners to let in additional evidence by sending the signature of Mrs. Badan Bai on the application submitted for getting a legal heir certificate of late Manakchand Jamad to Government Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai for obtaining handwriting expert opinion Crl.M.P. No. 13048 of 2014 was filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the first petitioner in collusion with other accused is alleged to have obtained a fraudulent legal heir certificate by forging signature of his mother and used it as genuine and prepared false partition deed and release deed by omitting three legal heirs of late Manakchand Jamad and hence, Crl.M.P. No. 13049 of 2014 was filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioners to examine the Revenue Inspector-IV, Fort- Tondairpet Taluk, Chennai, who conducted enquiry for cancellation of the legal heir certificate Ex.P.16 issued excluding three daughters of late Mrs. Badan Bai. He would further submit that yet another allegation against the petitioners is that the complainant was made to believe that on 16.12.2010, partition deed and release deed were registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Periamet, marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6 was to be a general power of attorney, and to prove their innocence, the examination of Sub-Registrar is necessary and hence, Crl.M.P. No. 13050 of 2014 was filed before the Appellate Court under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. But, these petitions were dismissed by the Appellate Court, without considering the same in a proper perspective. He would rely on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in K.R. Aravindakshan Nair Vs Essen Bhankers & another, 2007 2 KerLJ 673 for the proposition that even at the Appellate Stage to meet the ends of justice, the Appellate Court can allow the petition filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C.