It was further alleged that, using the aforesaid PoA the accused number 1, attempted to transfer the property of companyplainant by executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused number 2, Rajapandi for a sum of Rs.50,000/ .
PW 6 Mr. Nagaraja was working as Sub Registrar when accused number1 executed the mortgage deed in favour of accused number2 and he put his signature in the capacity of being the agent of Doris Victor and registered the documents.
50,000/ .
The original Power of Attorney was received by the accused number 1 Jawaharaj who put his signature on the same.
PW 4 Ms. Latha was the Sub Registrar when the accused persons came with the imposter for the registration of the Power of Attorney.
The companyplainant Mrs. Doris Victor died after filing the companyplaint.
The said deed was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Valliyoor wherein both the accused were present and accused number 1 put his thumb impression on the said document.
72 78 of 2003, which ended up in dismissal by upholding the order of companyviction.
Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli by way of Criminal Appeal Nos.
After the companypletion of investigation, a final report was filed against the aforesaid accused under Sections 420, 423 and 424, IPC.
After the said document was made by P.W. 1, two witnesses put their signatures along with P.W. 1 himself.
After inspecting the requisite official records, PW 2 informed to Doris Victor who was in Chennai, then both PW 2 Doris Victor filed companyplaints against the accused persons.
One month thereafter, both the accused came to the office of PW 1 for the execution of mortgage deed in respect of the said property for an amount of Rs.
Later they registered the said document in the office of Sub Registrar, Panangudi.
The statement made by PW3 companyroborates with that of PW1.
PW 2 Irin Edward was an acquaintance of Doris Victor, who was informed by one Dhanaraj of Panangudi that the accused number1 has forged the Power of Attorney in respect of a property belonging to Doris Victor and attempted to alienate the same by executing and registering a mortgage deed in favour of Rajapandi.
PW 3 Ramasubramanian , who was assisting PW 1 during the occurrence of the said incident, is an acquaintance of the accused and was number aware of the fact that the lady claiming to be Doris Victor was genuine or number.
After getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of the property Mrs. Doris Victor gave a companyplaint to the police which was subsequently registered as FIR dated 14.03.1998.
Aggrieved by the same, the Respondents Accused appealed before the Ld.
During the registration, along with the imposter, accused number 2 Rajapandi put his signature as a witness.
Thereafter, the respondents approached the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai, wherein the High Court acquitted the revision petitioners by setting aside the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below.
The case of the prosecution giving rise to these appeals, in brief, is that the companyplainant Mrs. Doris Victor deceased mother of the appellant was the owner of a plot insurvey numbers 1777/1A, 1778/1, 1779/1 and 1779/2 in Valliyoor village.
V. RAMANA, J. 1 These criminal appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Revision Case Nos.523 546 of 2005, wherein the High Court has allowed the criminal revisions and held that the companyviction of accused respondents is number sustainable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter IPC.
