K P S KANAKARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C. A. No. 78 of 1990 confirming the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, in c. C. No. 66 of 1989 for the offences under Secs. 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal code to undergo imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each.

(2.) THE accused revision petitioner herein is the brother of P. W. 2 and Senior paternal uncle of P. Ws. 1 and 3 to 9. One Shanmugha Nadar, who was the father of the accused, and P. W. 2 had purchased shares worth of Rs. 5,000 in Nazereth Co-operative Mill, Tiruchendur, during his life time and after his death in the year 1966, his share has devolved on all his legal heirs. Admittedly, the accused P. W. 2 and their brother's children P. Ws. 1 and 3 to 9 are jointly entitled to this share. THE prosecution case is that the revision petitioner accused herein forged the signatures of P. Ws. 1 to 9 in the consent letters Ex. P-21 and P-22 to transfer this share exclusively to him deceiving the other sharers and therefore, he has committed the offences under secs. 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, Ex. P-21 purports to be the consent letter of P. W. 1 and his brothers and sisters, who are examined as P. Ws. 2 to 9, agreeing for the transfer of their share to the revision petitioner. Ex. P-22, purports to be the consent letter given by P. W. 2 the brother of the accused. THE revision petitioner accused sent the requisition letters Exs. P-20 and P-25 in the year 1981 to transfer the share to his name in view of the consent given by the other sharers. On the basis of these letters and the consent of the other sharers under Exs. P-21 and P-22, the Board of Directors of the cooperative Mill, in their meeting, resolved for the transfer of the share, to the revision petitioner and thereafter the share certificate were given to him, for which he issued the receipt Ex. P-28. P. W. 16, the staff of Nazereth co-operative Mill has spoken in his evidence about the letter of the revision petitioner under Exs. P-20 and P-25 and also the nomination Ex. P-24 given by the revision petitioner and the subsequent follow-up action of the Mill by the resolution of the Board of Directors under Ex. P-26 to transfer the share to the revision petitioner and the receipt Ex. P. 28 issued by the revision petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the share certificates, by him.

(3.) WITH regard to the stand that the expert has not mentioned these reasonings in his evidence, I feel that this argument has to be straightway rejected because C. W. I the pert himself while producing Ex. C-7 before the court, has stated that he has given the reasoning in his report itself. The reasoning itself runs to seven pages and instead of repeating what he has given in Ex. C-7, he has simply stated that all his reasonings are found in Ex. C-7 report. When Ex. C-7 report is specifically mentioned by him in his evidence and also produced before the court, the argument that as he has not mentioned the reasoning by his mouth, it has to be taken that no reasoning is given, is not a sound or acceptable argument. If Ex. C-7 was not produced before the court, certainly this argument carries weight. As the witness himself has produced this document at the time of his evidence mentioning that reasons are found therein, the accused was not prevented from looking into the documents and cross examine the witness relating to the reasoning given by him. But the only question put to C. W. 1 is whether he was asked by the police to find out whether this revision petitioner or his son Dhansing had signed the signatures marked as Exs. Q-1 to Q-8 for which his answer is that though he was asked to find out that, he was not able to come to a definite conclusion as to the identity of the person who signed these disputed signatures. But it was not suggested to C. W. 1 that his opinion that the disputed signatures were not that of P. Ws. 1 to 9 is not correct or that his conclusion is erroneous. Therefore, now, it cannot be contended that as the expert did not give the reasons in his evidence, there was no need for any cross examination on these points.