(Prayer: This Crl.RP is filed u/s.397 r/w 401 Cr.p.c praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the prl. dist. and s.j., Chikkamagaluru in Crl.a.no.196/2012 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2012 passed by the sr. C.J. and J.M.F.C., kadur, chikmagalur district in c.c.no.10/2006 (convicted for the offences p/u/s 466,467,468,471 and 420 of IPC r/w sec.34 of IPC) and acquit the Petrs. of the charges Leveled against them.)

Oral Order:

1. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2012 passed in CC No.10/2006 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur District and the judgment and order dated 07.12.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.196/2012 by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parities.

3. Petitioners herein were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and were tried for the charge sheeted offences in CC No.10/2006 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur District. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1, who was working as a typist in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Additional JMFC, Tarikere and accused No.2, who was working as a process server in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Tarikere, had created forged salary certificates and other documents by misusing the seal of the Court and forging the signature of the Presiding Officer of the Court and had availed loan of Rs.27,000/- from Canara Bank. Accused No.4, based on the very same forged document of her husband/accused No.1, had also availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur, for which her brother-in-law/accused No.3 was a guarantor. The allegation against accused No.3 is that he impersonated himself as accused No.2 and stood as guarantor to the loan borrowed by his sister-in-law/accused No.4.

4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by them and had pleaded not guilty and therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its allegation against the accused had examined 20 charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW20 and had got marked 40 documents as Ex.P1 to P40. The Trial Court, thereafter, had recorded the statement of accused as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In support of the defence, no oral evidence was laid. However, the loan clearance letter issued by Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur, was marked as Ex.D1. Seal of the Court was produced and marked as MO Nos.1 and

2. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and order dated 18.10.2012, convicted and sentenced the petitioners. For the offence punishable under Section 466 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Section 467 read with 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Sections 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 34 of IPC Act, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. For the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.10/2006 was confirmed in Crl.A.No.196/2012 by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru by judgment and order dated 07.12.2016. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that prosecution has failed to prove its charges as against accused Nos.3 and 4. Evidence of PW5 would clearly go to show that accused No.1 had borrowed loan from Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, in the name of his wife/accused No.4. There is no material to show that accused No.4 was aware that salary certificate of her husband was a forged document. He submits that PW5 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that photo and signature found in the loan application belongs to accused No.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.3 had impersonated himself as accused No.2. He also submits that alleged incident had taken place in the year 2006 and therefore, leniency may be shown insofar as the order of sentence passed as against accused Nos.1 and 2.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. He submits that two Courts have concurrently held against the petitioners and scope for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction is very limited. He submits that accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1 and therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.4 had no knowledge of he impersonating accused No.2. Accused No.4 is the beneficiary of the loan borrowed. The two Courts having appreciated these aspects of the matter have rightly convicted all the accused for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

8. In order to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 are guilty of the charge sheeted offences, the prosecution is primarily required to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were working as Court Staff had created forged documents by using official seal of the Court and also forged the signature of the Presiding Officer of the Court and on the strength of the said documents, accused No.1 had borrowed loan of Rs.27,000/- from Canara Bank and accused No.2 was the guarantor for the said loan. Sofaras accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, prosecution is required to prove that accused No.4 had borrowed loan from Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur based on the forged salary certificate of her husband (accused No.1) and accused No.3, who is the brother of accused No.1 had impersonated himself as accused No.2 and stood as a guarantor for the loan borrowed by accused No.4.

9. To prove the allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW19 and PW20. PW1 and PW2 are the Presiding Officers of the Courts in which accused Nos.1 and 2 were working. PW2, is the retired Shirastedar of the Court. PW1 to PW3 have categorically stated that the seal of the Court was misused by accused Nos.1 and 2 and signature of the Presiding Officers were forged by accused Nos.1 and 2.

10. PW1 and PW3 have clearly stated that the signature found in the forged salary certificate of accused Nos.1 and 2, which are marked as Ex.P7 and P9, do not belong to them. They have also spoken about misuse of the Court seal by accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of preparing the forged salary certificates in their name. It is suggested to PW1 and PW3 by the defence that the disputed salary certificates were routinely issued during the course of discharging their duty and said suggestion was denied by PW1 and PW3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 by making this suggestion to PW1 and PW3 have virtually admitted that these disputed forged salary certificates were used by them for borrowing the loan from the financial institutions. PW19, is the expert, who has examined the disputed signatures of PW1 and PW3 and even his evidence conclusively proves that the signatures found in the disputed documents do not belong to PW1 and PW3. PW20, is the Investigation Officer, who has spoken about the seizure of these documents found in the financial institutions from which loan was borrowed by accused Nos.1 and 2 based on the forged salary certificates created by them. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has held that the prosecution had proved its charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly has convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charge sheeted offences. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court was justified in confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charge sheeted offences.

11. Insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the allegation against them is that based on the forged salary certificate, accused No.1 and his wife/accused No.4 had approached Chikmagalur District Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Chikmagalur, and had borrowed loan of Rs.25,000/- for which his brother/accused No.3 is the guarantor. According to the prosecution, accused No.3 had impersonated himself as accused No.2 and had stood as a guarantor to the loan borrowed by accused No.4. For the purpose of proving the allegations made against accused Nos.3 and 4, evidence of PW5/Sathish, who was working as a Manager at Chikamagaluru Jilla Mahila Sahakara Bank Limited, Chikmagalur, at the relevant period, becomes very much relevant. During his examination-in-chief, PW5 has identified accused No.1 and has stated that accused No.1 had approached the Bank and had borrowed loan in the name of his wife/accused No.4. He has stated that he had sanctioned loan to accused No.1 on 30.06.2004 and the said loan of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned based on the salary certificate of accused No.1.

12. During the course of cross-examination of this witness by accused No.4, he has admitted that accused No.4 has cleared the loan borrowed and the clearance certificate issued by the Bank has been marked as Ex.D1. This witness has also admitted during the course of his cross-examination that photograph found in the loan document of accused No.4 belongs to accused No.2/Gangadharappa and he was the guarantor for the loan borrowed by accused No.4. He has also admitted that all the loan documents of accused No.4 were signed by accused No.2/Gangadharappa. It has come on record that the loan documents of accused No.4 for which accused No.3 was the alleged guarantor was handed over to the police during the course of investigation by this witness.

13. From a reading of the deposition of PW5, it becomes highly doubtful that accused No.4 had the knowledge that the salary certificate of her husband/accused No.1, who was undisputedly a Court employee, was a forged document. PW5 has categorically stated during his examination-in-chief that he knew accused No.1 and accused No.1 had approached the Bank and had borrowed loan in the name of his wife/accused No.4 and the said loan was sanctioned by him. Merely for the reason that accused No.4 had signed the loan document, it cannot be said that she had the knowledge about the fraud and forgery committed by her husband/accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1 and according to the prosecution, accused No.3 had impersonated accused No.2 and had stood as a guarantor to the loan borrowed by his sister-in-law/accused No.4.

14. However, PW5 during the course of his cross-examination has stated that photograph found in the loan documents of accused No.4 belongs to accused No.2 and all the loan documents were also signed by accused No.2 himself. He has also stated that accused No.2 was the guarantor for the loan borrowed by accused No.4. In view of the aforesaid, the allegation made by the prosecution against accused No.3 that he had impersonated himself as accused No.2 and had stood as a guarantor to the loan borrowed by his sister-in-law/accused No.4 falls to ground.

15. From the deposition of PW5, it appears that accused No.2 was the guarantor for loan borrowed by accused No.4 and the photograph and signature found in the loan documents of accused No.4 belongs to accused No.2. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting accused No.3 for the charge sheeted offences. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has mechanically confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 and 4 by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts against accused Nos.3 and 4 cannot be sustained.

16. Insofar as the accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, though they have been rightly convicted for the charge sheeted offences by both the Courts, I am of the opinion that considering the fact that the alleged crime was committed in the year 2006 and thereafter, nearly, 19 years have elapsed, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them by both the Courts below needs to be modified and in turn the fine imposed on them for the charge sheeted offences can be enhanced.

17. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Nos.1 and 2 have grown up children and accused Nos.1 and 2 are also suffering from certain ailments. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused Nos.1 and 2 is reduced and the fine for the said offence is enhanced, the same would secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:-

                  ORDER

                  (i)       The criminal revision petition is partly allowed.

                  (ii)      The judgment and order of conviction passed against accused Nos.1 and 2 by the two Courts is confirmed and is set-aside as against accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned.

                  (iii)     Accused Nos.3 and 4 are acquitted of the charge sheeted offences and their bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Fine amount deposited, if any, by them shall be refunded to them.

                  (iv)     For the offence punishable under Sections 466 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

                  (v)      For the offence punishable under Sections 467 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

                  (vi)     For the offence punishable under Sections 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

                  (vii)    For the offence punishable under Sections 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

                  (viii)    For the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

                  (ix)     All the sentences shall run concurrently.