A BHASKARA NAIDU Vs. A JYOTHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case arises out of the judgment dated 31-08-2004 in C.C.No.131 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

(2.) The defacto complainant and the accused are brothers. They have cultivable lands. That the accused is alleged to have forged the signatures of the defacto complainant on Ex.P-3 sale deed dated 17-07-2000 (the date is wrongly mentioned in the trial Courts Judgment as 18-07-2000) and on Ex.P-4 amendment document dated 13-09-2000 (the date is wrongly mentioned in the trial Courts Judgment as 18-09-2000). Thus, he got the land of defacto complainant (PW-1) and registered in the name of accused/R-1. That the defacto complainant came to know about the same on 31-12-2000 while he along with his father and brother-in-law was watering the field (sugar cane crop), as the accused and the defacto complainant appeared there and objected watering the field stating that he is the bone fide purchaser of the filed for valuable consideration. That thereafter the defacto complainant went to the Sub-Registrars Office, Chittoor and verified the record and after obtaining the certified copies of Exs.P-3 and P-4, he preferred a complaint on 03-01-2001 with the Police of Palasamudram Police Station. That as the Police failed to investigate the case, he filed a private complaint before the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class which was forwarded to the Police for investigation and report. That after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused (R-1) for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 474 IPC.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22 on its behalf. Whereas, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence except Ex.D-1 part of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3.