Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The basic challenge is against the final report which is marked as Annexure A in Crl.M.C. No.8163/2018. According to the petitioners none of the offences mentioned in Annexure A are CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 attracted against the petitioners herein.

10. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

11. The basic contention that has been raised by the petitioners is that the allegations contained in Annexure A final report, even if are accepted for its face value in its entirety, no case is made out as against the petitioners herein (accused Nos.1 to 4). When we consider the contents of Annexure A, it can be seen that there are several allegations. Some of the major offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code. The basic allegations on which the aforesaid offences were registered are that the accused persons have created false pattas; namely, L.A. No.41/77 and L.A.No.15/77. The aforesaid allegation is raised on the premise that the revenue authorities could not find out the corresponding records of issuance of the said pattas in their official records. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, going by the allegations contained in Annexure A and the CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 materials produced in support of the said allegations, it can be seen that the allegation of creation of false documents is made specifically against the 5th and 6th respondents and not against the petitioners herein. It is to be noted that even going by the averments in Annexure A, the aforesaid properties were encroached upon by accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively and they have subsequently assigned the said properties in favour of the petitioners herein by virtue of document No.154/2006 and 196/2006 respectively. It is evident from the records that, the pattas mentioned above are claimed to have been issued in the year 1977 and consequently the mutation is seen effected in the name of 5th and 6th respondent on the basis of the same. From the list of witnesses attached with Annexure A charge sheet, it is evident that, CW9 is sought to be examined to prove that, mutation has been affected in the name of 5 th and 6th accused (previous owners) and tax was also collected from them. As far as the petitioners herein are concerned, they have purchased the aforesaid properties, only in the year 2006 from 5th and 6th respondents. A careful scrutiny of the allegations contained in Annexure A would reveal that, it does not CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 contain any specific allegation as against the petitioners herein to the effect that they were parties to the creation of the aforesaid false documents. On the other hand, even as per the prosecution case, the aforesaid properties were already in possession of the 5 th and 6th respondents on the basis of the alleged false pattas as mentioned above. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein who are the subsequent purchasers of the aforesaid properties, cannot be roped in, in respect of the aforesaid allegations. This is particularly because of the fact that, even going by the materials in Annexure A, it is evident that, the aforesaid properties stood mutated in favour of the 5 th and 6th accused, even before the purchase of the properties by the petitioners herein. It is true that, the petitioners have got mutation effected in their name. However, that is not sufficient to attract the offences relating to forgery or creation of false documents. As mentioned above, even going by the allegations, pattas were created by the 5 th and 6th respondents. Based on the said pattas, mutations were also affected in the name of the said accused. It is evident that, based on the said pattas, registered deeds were issued in favour of the CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 petitioners herein and the mutation was affected in favour of the petitioners, based on the same. By the time the title deeds of the petitioners were executed , the pattas allegedly created, were already acted upon by the Revenue Authorities, by affecting mutation in favour of the 5th and 6th accused. Therefore, merely because of the reason that the petitioners have purchased the said properties, they cannot be arraigned as accused, unless there are any materials to show the knowledge and intention on the part of the petitioners herein. Despite scanning through the material, nothing could be found out to establish such knowledge or intention on the part of the petitioners herein.

12. Another allegation against the petitioners are in respect of cardamom lands. The aforesaid properties were purchased by the petitioners, from accused Nos.9 to 13. As mentioned above, the title of the aforesaid properties can be traced back to the year 1935 (1110 M.E.) in the name of one Varaguna Senga Cherva. The allegation of false documents in respect of aforesaid properties is that the petitioners have got assignment of the aforesaid properties in their CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 favour by showing the nature of land in their title deeds different from that of cardamom land, which is the actual nature of the property. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that, the entries contained in the title documents of the petitioners with regard to the nature of the land would reflect only the physical nature of the land as on the date of such conveyance. The aforesaid entry in such a registered document would not attract an offence of forgery, as the question of creation of false document does not arise in this case. I find some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The offence of forgery is defined under Section 463 which reads as follows:

"463. Forgery Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

As one of the basic ingredients for constituting the offence of forgery is "making of false documents", the definition of the said expression as contained in Section 464 of Indian Penal Code is also relevant. CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 "464.Making a false document A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -

On going through the aforesaid provisions, it can be seen that, in order to attract the offence of forgery, there must be creation of a false document or false electronic records. In Section 464, three instances CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 of making a false document are specifically mentioned. A careful examination of the allegations in this case, it can be seen that the entries made by the parties at the time of execution of deeds executed between the parties for conveyance of properties would not come under any of the definitions as contained in Section 464 and therefore, it would not amount to "making a false document". In order to attract the first instance in Section 464, the document must have been made by the accused, with the intention of causing it to be believed that, such documents are part of documents that was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority, he knows that it was not made. This would mean that the execution of such documents should have been done with an intention to create an impression that the said document was executed by some other person with an authority, than the person who actually executed it. Therefore, an allegation of execution of the document by way of impersonation should be in existence in order to attract the first instance as contemplated under Section 464. In this case under no circumstances, the aforesaid provision can be made applicable, CRL.MC NO. 1560 OF 2014, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1774 OF 2014 & CRL.MC NO. 8163 OF 2018 because of the fact that, the document executed by the parties are executed in their own capacity as the owner in possession of the properties concerned. It is true that the authority of 5 th and 6th accused to execute such documents is disputed by the prosecution, as their case is that, the pattas claimed to be the title documents of the said accused, are fake. However, there is no material to show that, the petitioners herein have purchased the said properties, with the knowledge of the alleged falsity/fake nature of the said pattas. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution is that, acting upon the said pattas, 5th and 6th accused got the said properties mutated in their favour and later the said properties were sold to the petitioner herein. Therefore section 464 of IPC is not attracted on the basis of such allegations, as against the petitioners herein.