RAM AUTAR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS revi­sion has been directed under section 397 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 25.7.1989 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Criminal Ap­peal No. 70 of 1987 preferred by the revi­sionists against their conviction under sec­tions 419, 465 and 468 IPC awarded by II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 653 of 1987.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for respon­dent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, while parcha pairavi has been filed on their behalf. The facts giving rise to the case are that respondents No. 2 and 3 instituted a complaint against revisionists Chintamani, Smt. Vichitra and Genda lal under sections 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 474, 109 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri in the Court of II Additional Musnif Magistrate, Mainpuri, which was registered as complaint case No. 653 of 1987 with this allegation that Smt. Jai Devi was wife of Ram Sanehi, who died about 20 or 25 years before filing the said complaint and Smt. Jai Devi inherited two plots Nos. 208-A area 29 decimal and 208-B area 0.2 decimal of village Lallupura and plot No. 772 area 40 decimal of village Mu-doli from her husband, Smt. Jai Devi exe­cuted sale-deed in favour of Rameshwar Dayal and Chakkan Singh on 5.8.1983 for consideration, while accused Chintamani and his wife Smt. Vichitra Devi wanted to grab her land in dispute and they in collu­sion with accused Genda lal got a forged sale-deed of disputed land in the name of Chintamani purported to have been exe­cuted by Smt. Vichitra Devi in the pseu­donymous name of Smt. Jai Devi, but ac­tually Smt. Jai Devi never executed the said sale-deed in favour of Chintamani in respect of disputed land but Chintamani fraudulently got the sale-deed executed by his own wife Smt. Vichitra Devi imper­sonating her to be Smt. Jai Devi and he produced Smt. Vichitra Devi before Sub-Registrar as Smt. Jai Devi and got the sale-deed executed. Genda lal and Atar Singh stood as attesting witnesses to the said sale-deed and thus this was done in collusion with accused Genda lal, Smt. Vichitra Devi and Chintamani knew all the facts very well from very beginning that Smt. Jai Devi did not execute the sale-deed and she did not put her signature on the same. Chin­tamani also moved an application for mu­tation in the Court of Tehsildar, which was registered as case No. 557-A of 1983 Chin­tamani v. Jai Devi, in which Atar Singh filed an affidavit as a result of which Chin­tamani got the mutation application dis­missed for want of prosecution and Smt. Jai Devi also filed objection against the said application and thus the mutation applica­tion was dismissed and it was never re­stored thereafter.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revi­sionists has submitted that there is no evi­dence on record to warrant the conviction of the revisionists, because the applications ] and affidavits of Atar Singh and Genda lal were legally inadmissible in evidence and could not form basis for conviction of the revisionists. It is further submitted that the revisionists were riot questioned under section 313 Cr. P.C. on the aforesaid appli­cations and affidavits and no opportunity was afforded to them to explain the same and thus the said applications and affida­vits could not be read in evidence. Moreo­ver, the Courts below wrongly and illegally shifted the burden of proof of their inno­cence on the revisionists and admission of co-accused Genda lal could not be read in evidence against the revisionists. It is also submitted that P.W.2, Atar Singh himself admitted that the sale-deed in question bore the thumb marks of Smt. Jai Devi and this part of his evidence could not be dis­carded on the ground that he was not pro­duced for cross-examination and was sub­sequently discharged by the prosecution. In absence of the evidence of thumb print ex-pert it could not be held that the sale-deed in favour of the revisionists did not bear the thumb marks of Smt. Jai Devi. No ad­verse inference against the revisionists could be drawn for non-production of the original sale-deed as no notice was served upon the revisionists and otherwise also, they were not required by the Court to produce the same. The thumb mark of Smt. Jai Devi was available in the office of Sub-Registrar and could be compared with her specimen thumb marks to ascertain whether or not the sale-deed in favour of the revisionists was executed by her. It is further contended that the evidence of Smt. Jai Devi, P.W.1 and Chakkan Singh, P.W. 2 was nothing but hearsay and the Courts below committed error in placing reliance on the same. The sale-deed having been intentionally given in evidence in the judi­cial proceedings and mutation pending in the revenue Court, the said Court alone could file a complaint hi the matter and thus the complaint filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 was barred by the provisions of section 195 of Cr.P.C. It was established from the record and evidence that the sale-deed in favour of the revisionists bore thumb marks of Smt. Jai Devi and was exe­cuted by her. On behalf of the complainant Smt. Jai Devi was examined as P.W.1, Chakkan as P.W.2 and Atar Singh as P.W.3 but he was not produced for cross-examination and thus he was discharged. The complainant also filed certified copies of mutation appli­cation, order of dismissal of mutation ap­plication, extract of khatauni, certified copy of the sale-deed in favour of Chintamani, certified copy of application of Atar Singh filed in mutation proceedings, certified copy of affidavit of Atar Singh and the copy of objection as well as statement of Chakkan Singh. The revisionists did not file any document in support of their defence although they stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity.;