PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed to set aside the judgments dated 09.02.2012 made in respectively passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram, confirming the judgment dated 02.09.2010 made in passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's father Varadhan purchased lands from the father of the first accused and one Ponnan consisting of 0.43 cents on 21.7.1958 through a Sale Deed and another 0.43 cents on 25.03.1958 through a Sale Deed from the father of the first accused and his brother/PW-3 purchased 0.31 cents from the father of the first accused through a sale deed on 17.08.1969, in total consisting of 117 cents in Survey No.186/9. By knowing all those facts, A1 sold the land of 1.26 acre having Survey No.186/9 in the same village (including the above said lands of 117 cents) wilfully to A2 through a registered sale deed. A case in Crime No.04 of 2004 was registered by the respondent police against the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC. After completing investigation, the respondent police filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur and the same was taken on file in . After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, convicted the accused by judgment dated 02.09.2010 and sentenced them as follows:- Accused Offence Sentence A1 420 and 468 IPC 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC and 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 468 IPC . A2 420 and 468 r/w 34 IPC 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC and 2 years Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC Trial Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said judgment, the accused filed the appeal in before the learned District Sessions Judge, District Sessions Court No.2, Kancheepuram. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeals on 09.02.2012 by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. There against, A1 preferred the and A2 preferred the before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are so many variations in Survey numbers regarding the lands in the village and civil suits are pending in respect of the same and there is no mens rea for A1 to create such false documents with false claim and there is no evidence to show that A2 is not a bona fide purchaser. Further, he would submit that PW-1 has admitted that the survey numbers in the S.L.R would clearly show that the lands conveyed by the father of A1 to the father of defacto complainant with pymash numbers are not that the lands claimed by the defacto complainant S.No.186/9 and the same clearly proved that the defacto complainant's family is not having 117 cents upon the land in S.No.186/9 and therefore, it cannot be held that A1 wilfully conveyed the land of 1.26 acres of land in S.No.186/9 to A2 and it is clearly proved that there is some dispute in the title and right over the property. So, it cannot be concluded that A2 was having common intention. Both the Courts have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved its case that A1 and A2 created the false document and A1 sold the property, which he does not having title over the property and A2 knowing fully well that the property is not belonged to A1. A2 purchased the property, whereas, he is not the bona fide purchaser without giving any notice. The conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 468 of IPC is not sustainable under law, which warrants interference.