M DURGA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 423, 426, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C in C.C. No. 308 of 2009 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar. It is alleged that the 3rd Respondent / de facto complainant sold 73 square yards out of 150 square yards by retaining 77 square yards on North-Eastern part in the plan of H. No:1-10 of Harijana Colony, Habsiguda and that the accused also purchased plot No. 9 from its owner during the same time and that the 3rd Respondent and owner of plot No. 9 jointly executed registered sale deed on 14-09-2005 and that after presentation of the said sale deed for registration, the sale deed was kept pending with the sub-registrar for some time and that during the said period of pending registration, the accused with an intention to grab remaining 77 square yards of the site in plot No. 10, changed 73 square yards into 150 square yards with the connivance of the officials of the sub-registrar's office by replacing page numbers 2, 4 and 5 of the sale deed and by forging signatures of the 3rd Respondent on those pages. It is stated that subsequently the 3rd Respondent came to know about changing of pages 2, 4 and 5 and forging of his signatures therein, during the course of another litigation with one V. Chandraiah. It is alleged that during investigation, specimen signatures of the 3rd Respondent were obtained in the presence of two panch witnesses and they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparing the alleged forged signatures of the 3rd Respondent and that the forensic expert after making comparison gave report concluding that the signatures did not tally.

(2.) Even as per complaint of the 3rd Respondent, the alleged forgery and replacing of page numbers 2, 4 and 5 of the sale deed took place in the sub-registrar's office where the document was kept pending registration for some period. At no point of time after execution of the sale deed and before registration of the same, the sale deed was in custody of the accused. Even as per the prosecution case, the offence took place with the connivance of the officials of the sub-registrar's office. In spite of it, no officials of the sub-registrar's office were examined during investigation much less cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. It is not the prosecution case that the said officials of the sub-registrar's office are co-accused along with the Petitioner in this case. Admittedly, the sale deed in question was executed not only by the 3rd Respondent but also by owners of plot No. 9. It is stated that there are total of three executants in that sale deed. If really page numbers 2, 4 and 5 are to be replaced, then not only the officials of the registration department but also the other two joint executants of the 3rd Respondent must have colluded with the Petitioner. None of those joint executants of the sale deed along with the 3rd Respondent is made co-accused along with the Petitioner. It is contended by the Petitioner's counsel that not only page numbers 2, 4 and 5 but also plan attached to the sale deed gives the extent sold there under as 150 square yards in plot No. 10. It is not the prosecution case that the plan was also replaced and the plan also contains forged signatures of the 3rd Respondent.

(3.) The investigating officer is stated to have obtained specimen signatures of the 3rd Respondent during investigation. He did not obtain the specimen signatures or handwriting of the accused in order to find out whether the alleged forged signatures of the 3rd Respondent were made by the accused. When specimen signatures were obtained during pendency of a case, then there is every possibility of the person furnishing the specimen signatures camouflaging his real signature and simulating a signature which is not his real signature, in order to buttress the claim that his signature is forged.