10. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court also directed the Investigating Officer to file a status report in respect of the spilt up case pending against the third accused/Nagarajan. Pursuant to the directions, a spot visit has been made and inspite of the detailed enquiry with the wife of the accused No.3 and also at his native place and other place of work, absolutely there is no trace of the said Nagarajan. The said status report is taken on record. The Investigating Officer has also verified about the present status of the first accused and has produced proof agreeing with the submission on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that after the case, he was originally dismissed from service and by a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, he had again entered into the service as a fresh entrant in the original cadre of sub staff and had worked as a sub-staff, and he also retired from service with effect from 30.09.2022.
11. Eventhough, I am in agreement with the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) as far as the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has not further proved that the documents are forged is erroneous as the concerned witness from the University has been examined, still with regard to the aspects as to the making, signing or printing of the documents as to who, how and where the alleged false documents was made, there was no investigation nor any proof was before the Court. In that view of the matter, when the Accused who are arrayed are not proved to be either the maker or the person who has signed or executed the alleged false documents, by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the Sheila Sebastian -Vs- R. Jawaharaj & Another (2018 7 SCC 581), I am of the view that no interference is required with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the offences under Sections 468, 471 r/w 468 and 468 r/w 109 as not having been proved.
12. Further, even though in this case, the offense of cheating is linked with forging of false certificate, still conviction for the offense under Section 420 would be tenable. But however, in this case, after considering the evidence on record, including the manner of investigation and other deficiencies, when the trial Court has taken a view and its exercised its discretion to grant the benefit of doubt, I am of the view that the said finding, cannot be treated as a impossible view or perverse view. Once a view of the trial Court acquitting the accused is a possible view, this Court on the appeal against acquittal will not interfere with the decision of the acquittal and convert the same into one of guilt.
Acquittal confirmed.
Party
State rep.by The Inspector of Police Crime Branch CID, Salem (Crime No.1 of 2002). … Appellant Vs. 1.V.Srinivasan 2.S.Chakaravarthi – Crl.A.No.181 of 2012 – 02.02.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1023834
