IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 561 of 2004(A)
1. K.T.SHIHABUDHIN, S/O.K.T.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.R.P.No. 561/2004 & 2503
OF 2003
===========================
Dated this the 3rd day of June,2010
ORDER
Petitioners the accused in C.C.91/1994 on
the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court,
Manjeri were convicted and sentenced for the
offences under sections 205, 193, 465 and 468
of Indian Penal Code. The second accused was
convicted additionally for the offence under
section 471 of Indian Penal Code also. Though
petitioners challenged the conviction and
sentence before Sessions Court, Manjeri
learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of
evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence
and dismissed the appeal. First accused filed
Crl.R.P.561/2004 and second accused
Crl.R.P.2503/2003 challenging the conviction
and sentence.
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 2
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 is
that petitioner affixed his signature in Ext.P2
compounding petition only on the threat of the
petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 and as he was
threatened he appeared before the Magistrate as
Mohammed Salim, the complainant in C.C.53/1994 and
in such circumstances the conviction is not
sustainable. Learned counsel argued that in any
case leniency may be shown in the sentence as he is
an autorikshaw driver and it was only due to the
compulsion he committed the offences. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.2503/2003 argued that there is no evidence
to prove that the signature of the complainant in
C.C.53/1994 is forged, as Mohammad Salim, though
cited as CW1 was not examined. It was argued that
except the sworn statement of the first accused,
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 3
there is no material to prove that the signature in
the compounding petition is not that of the
complainant Mohammed Salim and therefore the
conviction is not sustainable.
4. Petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 was the
sole accused in C.C.53/1994 before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. It was a case charge sheeted
by the Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram on the
allegation that petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003
committed the offences under sections 341, 323, 337
and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The de facto
complainant in that case was Mohammed Salim.
Learned counsel submitted that he was only one of
the injured. Whatever it be, Ext.P2 compounding
petition dated 30.9.1994 shows that when the case
was called, petitioner produced Ext.P2 before the
learned Magistrate as a compounding petition signed
by him along with the injured Mohammed Salim. The
evidence of PW1 the Bench Clerk with Ext.P2
establish that when the learned Magistrate got
suspicious, while recording the sworn statement of
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 4
the petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 who appeared as
the complainant in C.C.53/1994 Mohammed Salim, it
was verified with PW2, Assistant Public Prosecutor
and thereafter a detailed statement of the
petitioner in Crl.R.P.561/2004 was recorded.
Ext.P2 shows that the said petitioner disclosed to
the learned Magistrate that he is not Mohammed
Salim but he signed in Ext.P2 as Mohammed Salim and
it was at the instance of the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.2503/2003 he signed in Ext.P2 as Mohammad
Salim and he was threatened by the revision
petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003, to appear before
the learned Magistrate as the complainant Mohammad
Salim and due to the threat he impersonated before
the Magistrate as Mohammad Salim. Though learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.2503/2003 argued that there is no evidence
to prove that signature of Mohammad Salim seen in
Ext.P2 is not that of Mohammad Salim but a forged
signature put by the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004, as Mohammad Salim was not
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 5
examined though cited as witness, on the facts and
evidence I cannot agree. Petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004 was examined by the learned
Magistrate when Ext.P2 was presented before him and
that sworn statement unambiguously and conclusively
establish that the signature seen in Ext.P2 as that
of Mohammed Salim was put by the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004. I find the non-examination of
Mohammad Salim is immaterial as far as the case is
concerned. Learned Magistrate and the learned
Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the
proper perspective and found that petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004 impersonated himself as Mohammad
Salim and signed as Mohammad Salim in Ext.P2. The
evidence also establish that it was the petitioner
in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 who made the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004, to sign as Mohammad Salim and
also to appear before the learned Magistrate as
Mohammad Salim by impersonation and it is the
petitioner in Crl.R.P.2503/2003 who made use of
Ext.P2 which is proved to be a forged document as
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 6
genuine in the judicial proceedings. In such
circumstances, conviction of the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.561/2004, the first accused, for the
offence under sections 205, 193, 465 and 468 of
Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and correct.
So also conviction of the petitioner in
Crl.R.P.2503/2003 the second accused for the
offences under sections 205, 193, 465, 468 and 471
of Indian Penal Code is also perfectly legal and
correct.
Then the only question is regarding the
sentence. As rightly found by the learned Sessions
Judge, the sentence awarded by the learned
Magistrate cannot be said to be excessive.
Petitioners had forged the signature of the
complainant and impersonated and attempted to make
the Magistrate act upon the forged document as a
compounding petition to close the case. It is a
very serious matter effecting the administration
of criminal justice and warrants severe sentence.
Hence I find no reason to interfere with the
Crl.R.P.561/2004 & 2503/2003 7
sentence also.
Revisions are dismissed. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Manjeri is directed to execute the
sentence. Petitioners are directed to appear
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on
2.7.2010.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006