Full Judgment
Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2000, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur, Bhabhua, in Cr. Appeal No. 214/2 of 1993/2000 confirming the order of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 18.9.1993 in G.R. No. 1011/88 Tr. No. 166/93, The revisionist Jamuna Tiwary was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on both the counts and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate Court maintained the order of conviction, but reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment for both the offences.
2. It has been submitted by the revisionist that the alleged sale-deed which was purportedly forged by the revisionist was not produced in Court. Moreover, none of the witnesses who allegedly figured on the sale-deed were produced in Court. All the six witnesses except P.Ws. 1 and 6 failed to support the alleged forgery, these witnesses were rather formal or hearsay about the alleged forgery. Moreover, the complainant herself and her son said that some of the lands were given up by the accused and some of the land is still remaining in the illegal possession of the accused.
3. So far as the question of illegal possession of the land of the complainant is concerned, the complainant may take recourse of legal provisions for its recovery; but that allegation may not in itself be a ground for forging the sale-deed. There is reference to a sale-deed by, number of particular deed in the complaint petition and it was alleged that the complainant came to know of its forgery, when she obtained certified copy of the sale-deed, but the certified copy of the sale-deed was not produced in Court during the course of trial so the basis of the alleged forgery was the sale-deed itself. The revisionist was convicted for the offence of forgery in particular and so unless the forged sale-deed which the complainant claims to have taken the certified copy of from the registration office should have been produced to support the fact of forgery. The alleged forgery was committed on account of the fact that the accused set-up some one else in place of the complainant's husband to execute the sale-deed on his behalf for his land. So unless the concerned sale-deed itself is produced, there should be no presumption that actually it was forged. Once it could, have been produced, the prosecution or the accused could have an opportunity to get the signature or L.T.I. of the complaint's husband compared with the admitted signature or the L.T.I. either by the Court or by an expert.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that in view of the non-production of the alleged sale-deed, there was no evidence for the offence of committing forgery. I think both the Courts below have recorded the order of conviction on the basis of no evidence as regards the alleged forgery except the bald statement of the complainant and his son about this forgery without any support from any other witness so the order of conviction recorded by the two Courts below are illegal. In the result there is no alternative but to set aside the order of conviction. Accordingly this revision is allowed and the accused shall stand acquitted.