P.THOMAS AND ANOTHER Vs. JOSEPH THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A. No. 23 of 1992 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli for the offences under Sec. 406, 467 and 471 read with Sec. 109 of Penal Code to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for each of these offences.

(2.) The accused are husband and wife. The prosecution case is that PW. 1 who is the brother of the first accused gave a loan of Rs. 8,000.00 to the first accused as he was unemployed, to run a printing press on a specific direction to purchase a printing machinery in his name and discharge the debt in course of time. It is also his version that the printing machineries were purchased in his name but after some time when the amount was not repaid to him he demanded the same from the first accused who denied the very loan itself and subsequently he came to know that his blank signatures were utilised to transferring the licence for running the printing press in the name of his wife, the second accused. Therefore, both the accused were prosecuted for the above said offences. The Trial courts as well as the Appellate court have concurrently found that the offences have seen established against these accused perils. During the pendency of this revision I am informed that both the complainant as well as the revision petitioners-accused are dead. However, in view of the decision of this court in Dubai Vs. State by Food Inspector 1991 LW (Crl) 61 that the abatement of the charges cannot be in the revision stage, the revision is, disposed of on merit. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. Jagannathan submitted that in his case the false document said to have been utilised by the accused persons have not been produced before the court to find out whether the same is really a false document, that there is also no evidence to hold that these accused had made that false document and wholly tee is no proof that the second accused having knowledge that it is a false document made use of the same for transferring the lance in her name.