Judgment :- 1. The accused in C. C. No. 517 of 1972 is the revision petitioner before me He was charged for the offence under S.468, 471 and 420 IPC. and was tried by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad. He was convicted for all the offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months one each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence this revision. 2. The accusation against the petitioner, who was a conductor in the R. K. V. Motor service, is that he on 16 21971 at about 11-15 A. M. got into the bus K. L. R.4192 at the southern junction on the Nedumangad-Pazha-kutty road and handed over a chit Ext. P1 to P. W. 2, the conductor of that bus. The representation made by him was that the chit Ext. P-1 was given to him by P. W.1, the proprietor of the bus. The instruction contained in the chit was for payment of Rs. 50/- to the petitioner. On the strength of the chit a sum of Rs. 50/- was handed over to the petitioner by the conductor, P. W. 2. P. W. 4 is the driver of the bus. P. W. 5 is an independent witness who got into the bus and who deposed that he saw the chit being passed on by the accused to PW. 2 and the conductor P.W.2 in turn giving money to the accused. 3. The accused's case is one of complete denial. In support of his case, he examined D. W.1 to prove that he was away on that day at the relevant time. 4. The trial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the offences against the accused were proved and convicted him; but treated him leniently and sentenced him as stated above. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal considered the prosecution evidence, accepted the same and confirmed the conviction and sentence. But surprisingly the appellate judge failed to consider the defence evidence and it was solely on the prosecution evidence that the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 6. 5. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal considered the prosecution evidence, accepted the same and confirmed the conviction and sentence. But surprisingly the appellate judge failed to consider the defence evidence and it was solely on the prosecution evidence that the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the failure on the part of the appellate judge to consider the evidence of D.W.1 rendered the judgment irregular, warranting interference at my hands solely on that account. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in Sheikh Ahamed v. State of Mysore (A.I.R.1956 Mysore 49). It is observed in the above decision as follows: "A Magistrate is bound to consider the evidence of the defence witnesses, for what it may be worth, before arriving at a conclusion. The conspicuous omission to refer to the evidence of the defence witnesses in the course of the judgment shows clearly that the Magistrate did not actually apply himself to the facts of the case and form an explicit opinion of his own on the questions of fact involved in the case, as required under the law." I respectfully agree with the principle enunciated in the above decision. 7. I do not say for a moment that the evidence of D.W.1, if considered, would have rendered a conviction impossible. May or may not. But the important point that has to be borne in mind is that the defence evidence is as important as the prosecution evidence and without adverting to the defence evidence, a judgment cannot be said to be complete. One does not know what the appellate judge would have done if he had considered the defence evidence in the proper perspective. If the evidence of D.W.1 was accepted, then the entire prosecution case would have been rejected by the Court below. The trial Magistral has of course considered the evidence of D.W.1. His evidence was rejected the trial court on the ground that the witness did not impress him as a truthful witness and the fact that the accused and the witness belong to two different committees would improbabilise the fact that the accused was invited for the function, which took place in D.W.1's house. His evidence was rejected the trial court on the ground that the witness did not impress him as a truthful witness and the fact that the accused and the witness belong to two different committees would improbabilise the fact that the accused was invited for the function, which took place in D.W.1's house. How far the appreciation of the evidence given by D.W.1 by the trial Magistrate would have weighed with the appellate judge, I am not in a position to appreciate on account of the absences of consideration of his evidence by the appellate judge. I am of opinion there fore that the judgment sought to be revised has got to be interfered with on that ground. 8. I would have set aside the judgment of the Court below and directed the Session Judge to re-consider the question afresh but for the fact that there are materials in the prosecution evidence which persuade me to doubt whether the prosecution case as presented is wholly true. P.W.5 is the only independent witness in this case. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 read together will show that there was some pressure brought to bear upon P.W. 5 to figure in this case as a witness. It is said that P. W. 2 wanted P. W. 5 to be a witness in this case. This version given by P.W.S. is not adhered to by P.W. 2. What is more, P.W.1 who is the aggrieved party in this case, the ultimate loss being his, took 10 days to prefer a complaint against the accused. This delay has not been explained by the prosecution. P.W.4, the driver of the bus, does not give any useful evidence in this case, since placed as he was, he could not see the actual passing of the chit by the accused to P.W.2. 9. Under these circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by remanding the case back to the appellate judge for re-consideration of the evidence of D.W.1 also. 10. In the result, I hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are several regions in the prosecution evidence which arouse suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding what actually happened. 10. In the result, I hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are several regions in the prosecution evidence which arouse suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding what actually happened. I say so in the context of some suggestions by the defence counsel, about participation of the accused in the strike, which is of course denied by P.W.1. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused are set aside. The accused is acquitted of all the charges. The criminal revision petition is allowed.