Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16.The Learned Senior Counsel would therefore press home the 13 AIR 1956 SC 116 14 AIR 2019, Supreme Court, 3998 15 2005 (12) SCC 631 16 ( 2010) 4 SCC 491 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis point that the prosecution should have further proved the factum that the Power of Attorney was forged. The Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in this case, neither the maker of the Power of Attorney that is the person, who was said to have impersonated as Suganthi/P.W.1, was identified or prosecuted nor the signature of Suganthi/P.W.1 was sent for examination of any Forensic Expert for comparison with the admitted signatures. He would submit that it could have so happened that the first respondent/Suganthi, herself executed the document, but by mistake, somebody else's left thumb impression alone was made in the document by way of administrative error in the Sub-Registrar Office. This doubt is fortified by the fact that both the attesting witnesses viz., P.W.2 on P.W.3 had categorically spoken about the fact that the first respondent/Suganthi was presented at the Sub-Registrar Office. Therefore, when the case of the prosecution gives room to plausible doubt, the verdict of the Trial Court, acquitting the petitioners/accused by granting the benefit of the doubt ought not to have been interfered with by the Lower Appellate Court.

17.Per Contra, Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar, Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that in this case, the evidence of P.W.6 clearly demonstrated that it is the first accused, who requested him to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis prepare the document and at his instance, he has made the Power of Attorney ready. He is the beneficiary of the Power of Attorney. Therefore, the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel, that the prosecution is not alleging the accused to be the maker of the false document, is factually incorrect. In this case, it is the first accused, who is the maker of the false document and the prosecution has categorically alleged the same and proved the same. Therefore, the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC, are categorically proved. This is an open and shut case, where he has set up some unknown person to impersonate as his own sister and by forging her signature and the left thumb impression, the false document of Power of Attorney was created.

20.It is a clear case of the accused, cheating her and registering the false document. She would submit that during the investigation, the higher officials felt that it was unnecessary to compare both the signature as well as the left thumb impression, and once it was proved that the thumb impression does not belong to her, the case is automatically proved and even in the absence of the prosecution of the concerned Impersonator, still, the accused No.1 to 3, are guilty of the offences, therefore, they are rightly punished. She would also submit that her father wanted to depose the truth. But was whisked away by the accused at the last minute from the Court and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the same can be ascertained from the Court proceedings. She would submit that this is a clear case of high-handed practice by the accused. In spite of repeated opportunities by the Lower Appellate Court as well as before this Court, the accused have not shown any remorse and they have not come forward to correct the grave mistakes done by them and to settle the issue. She submit that when this Court requested on an earlier occasion, considering that the matter is between the brothers and sister, she had not asked for anything extra except her own property by way of the proposal and there was absolutely no response whatsoever by the petitioners/accused as they are still attempting to somehow cheat her of her property. Therefore, she would pray this Court to dismiss the revision. C. The Points for Consideration :

23.In this regard, it has to be decided whether the first accused/Ramachandran can be alleged to be the maker of the false document. In this case, the false document is the Power of Attorney. The Power of Attorney was typed in the appropriate stamp paper, the signatures https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of P.W.1 were forged, the signature of the person, who drafted the Power of Attorney was made, the attesting witnesses signatures were made, and the Power of Attorney was presented before the Sub-Registrar and the left thumb impression was affixed at the rear side of the stamp paper by the third party impersonating as P.W.1/Suganthi. Therefore, the question is whether the said third party, who is alleged to have signed and affixed the left thumb impression alone is the maker of the document or the first accused, who had arranged for typing of the document, attestation, signature of the drafting person, presenting the document before the Sub-Registrar Office and claiming the document back, can be alleged as the maker.