Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr K N Puttaraju on 13 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.810 OF 2015
Between:
The State of Karnataka
By the Hanumanthanagar,
Police Station, Hanumanthanagar,
Bengaluru. ...Appellant
(By Shri. S. Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)
And:
Mr. K. N. Puttaraju
S/o. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.4,
Near Vidya Peetha Circle,
Behind Gubbi Bank,
BSK 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-560 050. ...Respondent
(By Shri. R. A. Devanand, Advocate)
---
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 378 (1)
and (3) Cr.P.C praying to A)grant leave to appeal against
the judgment and order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the
additional S.J., FTC-VIII, Bangalore in
CRL.A.No.64/2013 in acquitting the Respondent-
Accused of the offences P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 474 and
420 of IPC and B)set aside the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 16.02.2015 passed in
CRL.A.No.64/2013 by the Trial Court by allowing this
Criminal Appeal by confirming the order dated
09.01.2013 passed in C.C.No.14570/2007 passed by
the I A.C.M.M., Bangalore and C)convict and sentence
that respondent-accused for the offences P/U/S 465,
468,471, 474, 420 of IPC.
This criminal appeal coming on for Orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.
There is a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. However, the appeal is considered on merits.
2. The facts of the case are as follows;
The complainant one Smt.V.R.Shantha, had filed a complaint against the accused contending that she was 3 the owner of the house property bearing No.21/4, situated at Sunkenahalli, Bengaluru. She had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 18.8.2003 from V.S.Rangaiah, as General Power of Attorney Holder of original owner Chinnappa resident of Kathriguppa, Bengaluru. After registration of the Sale Deed, the complainant was said to be put in possession of the property by her Vendor. Since then she has been in possession of the suit schedule property.
3. It is her further case that, the father of the accused had been a tenant of a portion of the said property consisting of a room, hall and kitchen with asbestos roofing since the year 1980, under a rental agreement, having been inducted by General Power of Attorney holder of the said original owner Chinnappa on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. It is further contended that the accused with an intention to grab the property has 4 created an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by V.S. Rangaiah, the Power of Attorney holder of the owner Chinnapa, and that he had forged the signature of the Power of Attorney holder Sri.V.S.Rangaiah, dated 25.11.1998. On the basis of the said forged and created documents, the accused had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.639/2004 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking specific performance of contract and that suit was pending as on the date of the impugned judgment. It transpires that Sri.V.S.Rangaiah had expired on 1.3.2005. Incidentally, the complainant was none other than the daughter of Sri.V.S.Rangaiah, the Power of Attorney Holder of the original owner Chinnappa. It is in this background she has filed the complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5
4. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet is said to be filed. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and the accused appeared before the Court and contested the matter. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses and on completion of the trial, the trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment and fine, apart from imposing other punishment under other provisions of law. The said judgment was challenged in an appeal. That appeal came to be allowed. The conviction was set aside. Against which, the accused as well as the complainant approached this Court in a Criminal Revision Petition in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.1012/2011 and 1087/2011 respectively. This Court confirmed the observation of the First Appellate Court. The matter was 6 however remanded to the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The witnesses were said to have been recalled and cross- examined by the accused and after hearing the parties once again, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration.
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has forged and fabricated the agreement of sale dated 25.11.1998 and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 65, 468, 471, 414 and 420 of IPC?
2) Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is perverse, capricious and un- sustainable under law?
3) Is there any necessity to intervene in the order of the trial Court?
4) What order?7
6. It has answered point No.1 in the negative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
7. The Court below has found that the complainant was none other than the daughter of the Power of Attorney holder V.S. Rangaiah, whose signature is said to have been forged by the accused. It is also noticed that Rangaiah was very much alive when the suit for specific performance was filed by the accused. He did not contend that the agreement of sale set up by the accused was forged. It is only after his death that the complainant who has purchased the property from her father, who was acting as Power of Attorney holder for the original owner, has chosen to file the complaint alleging that the agreement was a forged document. The witnesses examined were, apart from 8 the complainant, her relatives. The signatures which had been referred to the handwriting expert was also examined as the witness. It was his evidence to the effect that the disputed signature did not bear the natural characteristics and it is a perfect imitation of the admitted signature of the deceased. The Court below has opined that the signature was found to be identical and the expert has opined that they are imitation forgery. There is no variation in the signature of both admitted and disputed signatures and therefore it would lead to a conclusion that the signature has been made by the same person and the Court below was of the firm opinion that accused had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the deceased during his life time and the deceased had not made any effort to file a complaint during his life time on receipt of the summons from the Court. It is only after his death, that the daughter who is the beneficiary under the Sale Deed 9 has come up with the criminal case against the accused. The Court has also opined that the absence of attornment of tenancy in favour of the complainant, after the alleged sale in favour of the deceased V.S.Rangaiah, when the accused was a tenant under Rangaiah and said Rangaiah having sold the suit property to his daughter/complainant, the complainant ought to have issued notice to the accused to pay further rents to her after registration of the alleged Sale Deed. But no such evidence was forthcoming from the complainant or her brothers who are examined in support of the complainant's case.
8. It is in this fashion that the Court below has opined that, the findings including that of the handwriting expert did not make out any case against the accused.
10
There can be no fault found with this reasoning, though the several grounds are raised in the appeal.
Given the reasoning of the Court below pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no warrant for interference.
The present appeal is rejected. Consequently, the application IA No.1/2015 for condonation of delay would not merit consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE AP