(Prayer: This Crl.RP is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the impugned judgment and sentence and orders I.E., the judgment and sentence passed by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli, Mandya District, in C.C.No.02/2007 dated 24.07.2018 and the judgment/order passed by the Hon'ble 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, Mandya District, in Crl.A.No.45/2018 dated 31.10.2018, thereby kindly allow this petition by holding that all the charges leveled against the Accused No.1 and 2/ Petitioners are not proved and kindly acquit them from all the charges.)

CAV Order

1. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State.

2. This revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2018 passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.02/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also the confirmation order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.45/2018 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.

3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant Smt. Jayamma as per complaint marked as Ex.P1., that accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. N P Raju and Sunil Kumar, on 09.09.2005 have executed the sale deed in favour of P.W.8 - T Umashanakara, s/o. Thippa Reddy by impersonation by pretending themselves as the owners of the said land, cheated the complainant. They indulge in fabrication of documents by playing fraud along with accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e., Mahesha and Soppu Hombalegowda, who were the attesters to the sale deed with common intention sold 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.21/3, 05 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/2, 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/4B and 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.27/2B of Basavanahalli Village, in all 56 guntas belongs to father- in-law of the complainant i.e., Late Siddegowda, s/o. Bojjegowda of Nandipura Village, Malavalli Taluk and the said sale deed was registered in the Sub-Registrar office, Malavalli Town. The police having received the complaint at Ex.P1 registered the case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.

4. During the pendency of proceedings, accused No.4- Soppu Hombalegowda, reported as dead. Hence, the proceeding against him is abated. In respect of accused No.3- Mahesha is concerned, he was absconded. Thus, the trial was taken place against accused Nos.1 and 2 who appeared before the Court and they did not plead guilty and face the trial.

5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the case, in all cited 10 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 10 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P20. On closure of evidence of prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 were subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and denied the incriminating circumstances.

6. The trial judge evaluated the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, particularly taking note of the fact that there was no dispute in respect of land which belongs to one Siddegowda, s/o. Bojjegowda. But accused Nos.1 and 2 claims that the property belongs to them and accused No.1 sold the property in the name of Siddegowda and his name is also N P Raju. Accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1, who had also joined in selling the property in favour of P.W.8 - T Umashankara.

7. Further, the very contention of accused No.1 is that, his birth name is Siddegowda alias N P Raju, and the property was sold to P.W.8- T Umashankara, which belongs to him. As such, he has not committed any guilt. However, the trial Court taking note of the evidence available on record, particularly with regard to the name of accused No.1 as N P Raju. In all the documents such as vakalathnama, summons and also in statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he had signed as N P Raju and nowhere, he signed as Siddegowda. Even when the surety was offered by one Thammegowda, who is none other than full blood brother of accused No.1, N P Raju and one Puttegowda is the father of accused No.1 and the surety Thammegowda. Whereas, one Siddegowda who is the owner of land in question, is the son of Late Bojjegowda of Nandipura Village and P.W.1/complainant Smt. Jayamma is the daughter-in-law of Late Siddegowda and wife of his son Late Marigowda is also not specifically disputed by accused No.1 in his cross-examination, except stating that he is also called as Siddegowda alias N P Raju and the same was not accepted by the trial Court. Apart from that, the original owner of the property i.e. Siddegowda, who died 30 years ago and his son Marigowda, who is the husband of P.W.1/complainant also passed away 7 to 8 years ago. The deaths of these persons are also not disputed. Based on the material available on record and also evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no substance in the contention of accused No.1 that his name is Siddeogowda alias N P Raju and nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. All these aspects are discussed in detail by the trial Court in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of its judgment. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material placed on record, convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred appeal in challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

8. The appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence, assigned reasons which starts from paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, particularly taking note of the documents at Exs.P4 to P7. The said documents stand in the name of Siddegowada, s/o. Bojjegowda. Further, the appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly the evidence of P.W.1- Jayamma, P.W.2-Ranganatha N, P.W.6-Somashekar who is a handwriting expert and also the evidence of P.W.8- T Umashankara who is the purchaser of the land in question, categorically deposes that accused No.1 impersonated as Siddegowda and accused No.2 is none other than son of accused No.1. Both of them pretended themselves that they are the owners and committed fraud in selling the land in question. All these materials have taken note of by the appellate Court to confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the orders of trial Court as well as appellate Courts, the present revision petition is filed.

9. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would vehemently contend that the evidence of complainant Smt. Jayamma, who has been examined as P.W.1, has given a very vague and unintelligible complaint and she was not having any manner of right and title in respect of land in question. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the close relatives of the complainant. Further, he contends that the complainant purposefully, intentionally and deliberately filed a false complaint. It is further contended that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have committed an error in appreciating the evidence, particularly, the document at Ex.P3 which is the sale deed standing in the name of Siddegowda, since the same is alleged document relied upon by the prosecution.

10. The evidence of P.W.2- Ranganath is very clear that he is the scribe of Ex.P3 i.e. the sale deed. When the author of Ex.P3 clearly admitted in his cross-examination about his duties, unfortunately, the courts below have not at all taken into consideration of his evidence.

11. It is further contended that the seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P9 and is not legally proved and its contents is not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3- Nagaraja and another seizer mahazar vide Ex.P8 is also not proved and its contents are not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6-Somashekar. Hence, the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be accepted.

12. The counsel would further submit that P.W.8-T Umashankar was not arraigned as accused. Hence, he has supported the case of prosecution. All these factors were not taken note of by both the Courts while appreciating the evidence. The counsel also in support of his argument would contend that when no material is collected in respect of original owner, the evidence of P.W.6 Somashekar cannot be believable and prosecution has not made out the case that the revision petitioners have indulged in an offence of impersonation and committed any fraud and the essential ingredients under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code has not been proved.

13. The counsel in support of his argument relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhikkubhai Govindbhai Patel & Anr. vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 532, and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.54 where in the Apex Court relied upon the judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein Apex Court observed that where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, where the allegations fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, where there is extraordinary and unexplained delay, and where continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse process of Court and quashed the judgment. Learned counsel by referring to the aforesaid judgment would vehemently contend that the grievance of the complainant would be agitated in civil proceedings and not in criminal proceedings and this dispute is purely civil in nature i.e., selling the property belongs to another person by pretending as owner of the property.

14. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State in his argument would vehemently contend that the contents of the complaint Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1/complainant is consistent and the same is also in consonance with the allegation made in the complaint at Ex.P1. The counsel would also submits that P.W.2 is the scribe of the document at Ex.P3 and also P.W.6 is the expert who gave opinion that specimen signature which have been collected from accused No.1 and also the Exhibit P3(b) to (e) signatures and the thumb impressions which have been marked at Exs.11,12 and 13 and also the specimen thumb impressions marked at 'A' and 'Q' respectively are identical to each other and of the same person. The same is taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph No.10. The Sub Registrar who registered the document of Ex.P3 was also examined as P.W.4 who claims to have registered Ex.P3 executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and so also P.W.8 categorically deposes that accused Nos.1 and 2 only executed the sale deed and the investigating officer seized the document of Ex.P3 and mahazar witnesses also supports the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the document was sent to the FSL and FSL report is marked as Ex.P13 and all these oral evidence as well as documentary evidence of fingerprint examination report as well as opinion of fingerprint expert and photographs at Exs.P11 and 12 substantiates the case of the prosecution.

15. The appellate Court also having considered the material reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos.12 to 16 comes to the conclusion that though defence was taken that accused No.1 is called as Siddegowda alias N P Raju, but taken note of the fact that his father's name is Puttegowda and not Bojjegowda. The appellate Court also taken note of Exs. P4 to P7 i.e.,RTC, which clearly discloses that lands in question stand in the name of Siddegowda, s/o. Bojjegowda and the defence has not been substantiated that accused No.1 is called as Siddegowda and his father name is Bojjegowda which requires no interference. Lastly, learned HCGP would submit that scope of revision is very narrow and it is only to examine whether the orders of trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffer from its legality and correctness.

16. Having heard the counsel for revision petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent/State and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

          a. Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court and also the confirmation order passed by the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness to exercise the revision jurisdiction?

          b. What order?

17. Having considered the case of complainant at complaint at Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, it is her case that in all 56 guntas of land belongs to her father-in-law Siddegowda, s/o Bojjegowda was sold by accused Nos.1 and 2 by way of impersonation, pretending themselves as the owners of the land with an intention to cheat and make wrongful gain. The defence is also not disputed in respect of all these lands in the said survey numbers belongs to one Siddegowda s/o, Bojjegowda. But P.W.1 claims that Siddegowda is her father-in-law and his son Marigowda is her husband and said Siddegowda passed away 30 years ago and her husband passed away 7 to 8 years ago. The same is not disputed in the cross- examination of P.W.1 and so also it is not disputed that lands in question sold under Ex.P3 belongs to Siddegowda. The only defence taken by the accused is that the birth name of accused no. 1 is Siddegowda alias N P Raju and the property sold to P.W.8 belongs to him. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 claims that they have not committed any offence. The trial Court took note of this defence in paragraph No.11 and 12 and comes to the conclusion that when prosecution was able to prove that property belongs to Siddegowda s/o Bojjegowda and Exs.P4 to P7, stands in the name of Siddegowda s/o Bojjegowda. However, accused No.1 claims that his name is Siddegowda alias N P Raju. In order to substantiate the same, the accused did not place any material before the Court.

18. It is also important to note that the father name of Siddegowda alias N P Raju is Puttegowda and father name of original owner Siddegowda is Bojjegowda. But accused claims that though his father name is Puttegowda he is also called as Siddegowda. In order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on their side. But prosecution proved that the lands in question belong to Siddegowda s/o. Bojjegowda while producing the documents at Exs.P1 to P7. The trial Court took note of vakalath signed by Siddegowda alias N P Raju and also accused No.2 Sunil Kumar. Both of them signed the vakkalath as N P Raju and Sunil Kumar but no where accused No.1 signed in vakalath as Siddegowda alias N P Raju and even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They are not denying the same. But it is totally denied and signed as N P Raju only. When the incriminating evidence was put to both of them, they have not claimed that accused No.1 is also called as Siddegowda alias N P Raju.

19. The trial Court also took a note of paragraph No.12 that one who has given the surety is none other than the full blood brother of accused No.1 and his father name is mentioned as Puttegowda. As such, Puttegowda is the father of accused No.1 and surety. The fact that Siddegowda s/o. Bojjegowda is the owner of the land in question and the same is substantiated by the evidence of P.W.1. and the fact that the father-in-law Siddegowda passed away 30 years ago and her husband also passed away 7-8 years ago is not at all disputed by accused. When such being the scenario, the question of Siddegowda s/o. Bojjegowda selling the lands in question does not arise. No doubt, the main argument of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that none of the documents belongs to the original owner Siddegowda was collected and the same is admitted by the investigating officer and the fact that he passed away 30 years ago and question of collecting document belonging to Siddegowda s/o Bojjegowda does not arise. Instead of obtaining thumb impression of accused No.1 which have been marked and the thumb impression found in Ex.P3 is also sent to P.W.6 expert and he categorically deposes that both are identical and the same is proved.

20. Apart from that, P.W.2 also specifically states that accused No. 1 has signed the document by putting his thumb impression on the document of Ex.P3 in his presence who is the scribe of document and also the evidence of purchaser of the lands i.e. P.W.8, is also very clear that accused No.1 impersonated as the original owner i.e. Siddegowda though he was not having any title over the lands in question.

21. Having considered the evidence of all the witnesses including investigating officer particularly the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4. P.W.4-Sub Registrar also deposes that accused Nos.1 and 2 only appeared before him and executed the document at Ex.P3, evidence of P.W.6 -expert and so also the evidence of P.W.8 is very clear regarding guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence available on the record. With regard to subject matter of the issue, it was discussed in paragraph No.12 and also taken note of cross-examination of P.W.1 that nothing is brought out by accused No.1 to indicate that even the said lands are belongs to him. When suggestion was made that accused No.1 is also called as Siddegowda but she categorically denied in the same and taken note of the fact that father- in-law of P.W.1 died 30 years back and the same is not disputed. No document is produced on record to show that the birth name of accused No1 is Siddegowda. Further, it is taken note of the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 are father and son and both of them have not disputed the sale of lands in question but they claims that they are the owners of the said lands and accused No.1 is also called as Siddegowda alias N P Raju. The same is not substantiated and the defence was not proved. When prosecution has proved the case that impersonation has taken place by selling the lands in question in the name of Siddegowda by pretending that he is the owner of the lands along with his son. When accused No.1 also took the specific defence that he is also called as Siddegowda and the same is not proved. Even nothing is placed on record to prove the probable defence.

22. Further, Exs.P4 to P7 evidence that aforesaid lands stands in the name of Siddegowda s/o. Bojjegowda and there is nothing on record to show that he is the son of Bojjegowda. Though accused No.1 claims that he is also called as Siddegowda, but not produced any document to show that his father is Bojjegowda. But his father name is Puttegowda. All these factors were taken note of in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment of the appellate Court.

23. Now this Court has to consider with regard to the scope of revision and no doubt the counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgments stated supra, wherein powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was exercised. But in the case on hand, there is impersonation of selling the property claiming that he is the owner of land in question. Further, it is not only impersonation but it is also a case of clear cheating. It is a settled law that when Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is invoked, the same is must be at the inception of the transaction. But in the case on hand, very cheating is from the inception of the act claiming that he is the owner though he is not the owner and hence, intention to cheat is found. It is nothing but making of wrongful gain of causing a loss to the original owner.

24. Under the circumstances, the very contention that this case is civil in nature cannot be accepted and the judgment relied upon by the Apex Court in referring the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. When the essential ingredients of the offences which have been invoked are found and it is not a case of giving any criminal colour in respect of civil dispute. It is purely committing an offence punishable under Section 417 and also 420 of Indian Penal Code. The creation of document at Ex.P3 by accused No.1 though he is not having right, title in any manner and having received the sale consideration of Rs.39,500/. Hence, criminal case ingredients are found in the case on hand in order to make wrongful gain indulged in such act. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand and the scope of revision is also very limited. The revision powers can be exercised only when the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness.

25. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Akalu Ahir and Others vs. Ramdeo Ram reported in (1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 583, wherein it is held that while exercising the revision powers, the Court has to appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily that too when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law and there has consequently been flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court in the course of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the re-trial of the acquitted accused persons. From the very nature of this power, it should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. This principle is also applicable in the case of conviction and when there is a concurrent finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court, if both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and in considering the material on record and even when there is a glaring error. Under the circumstances, the Court can exercise its revision power.

26. This Court would also like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and Another vs. Krishnaveni and Another reported in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 241, wherein, there is discussion about Sections 397(3), 401, 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C. Further, the exercise of revision power under Section 397 read with Section 401 is to call for the records of any inferior criminal court and to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceedings of such inferior court and to pass appropriate orders. This aspect is explained in paragraph No.7 of the judgment stated supra by the Apex Court. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Courts below have committed an error in considering the material on record.

27. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. reported in AIR ONLINE 2012 SC 668, while discussing the scope of ambit of revision, held in paragraph No.8 which reads as under:

          "8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of the power which the courts including the High Court can exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are no exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."

          (emphasis supplied)

28. It is also relevant to extract paragraph Nos.12 and 25 of the judgment, wherein the detail discussion was made with regard to exercise of revisional power, which reads as under:

          "12. Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. The jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily."

          25. A wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact and such person voluntarily causing or procuring or attempting to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing. According to the record, the accused had made a wrong statement that he had paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- for purchase of the property C- 224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and the property belonged to him. Whether it was a misrepresentation of the accused and was an attempt to harass the deceased and her family which ultimately led to her suicide is a question to be examined by the Court. The allegations as made in the afore-stated documents is clearly reflects that blank documents were got signed, but the purpose, the consideration and complete facts relating to the transaction were not disclosed to the deceased or the family. This would, at least at this stage, not be a case for examining the correctness or otherwise of these statements as these allegations cannot be said to be ex-facie perverse, untenable or malicious. It would have been more appropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court, if it would have left the matter to be determined by the Court upon complete trial. May be the accused would be entitled to get some benefits, but this is not the stage. These are matters, though of some civil nature, but are so intricately connected with criminal nature and have elements of criminality that they cannot fall in the kind of cases which have been stated by us above. There, the case has to be entirely of a civil nature involving to element of criminality."

          (emphasis supplied)

29. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the judgment supra and considering the material available on record, this Court has to examine the material available on record whether such powers of revision can be exercised in the case on hand.

30. Having considered the material on record, particularly evidence of PW1, the documentary evidence of Exs.P4 to P7 and so also Ex.P13, i.e., opinion of the handwriting expert and also the impersonation is proved. Even by considering the evidence of P.W.2 who is the scribe of the document of Ex.P3, the Sub Registrar who has been examined as P.W.4 and also the evidence of P.W.6-handwriting expert is very clear that specimen signature collected from accused No.1, the thumb impression and also the thumb impression found in Ex.P3 are identical and so also the very purchaser i.e. P.W.8- T Umashankara comes before the Court and depose that by identifying accused Nos.1 and 2 that they are the vendors of him and also they were not having any right, title over the lands in question, however, they pretend that they are the owners and sold the property. These are the materials which were considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any error on part of both the Courts and the same do not suffer from any legality and correctness. Therefore, I answer the aforesaid points in negative.

31. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

          a. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

          b. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court passed in C.C.No.2/2007 on 24.07.2018 and confirmation order passed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.45/2018 on 31.10.2018 are confirmed.

          c. If any bail bond is executed by the revision petitioners/accused, the same shall stand cancelled.