RAJU AND SARADH1 @ RAJAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who have been charged under Section 419, 467 & 468 IPC, challenge their conviction and sentence of 2 years RI under Section 467 and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence and 2 years RI under Section 468 IPC with Rs.1000/- fine with default sentence and 2 years RI under Section 419 IPC passed in S.C.No.192 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that both A1 and A2 have forged an agreement of sale dated 18.6.1994 as though it was executed by one Thimiyammal, the aunt of A2, in order to grab at the property of the deceased Thimiyammal. The accused have also been charged under Sections 302, 404 & 201 IPC. But the trial Court has acquitted both the accused against the charge under Section 302, 404 & 201 IPC on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 302, 404 & 201 IPC.

(3.) After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, had issued summons to the accused and on their appearance copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, who had tried the case, on appearance of the accused framed charges under Section 419, 467, 468, 302, 404 & 201 IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.