Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. This Criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of conviction, dated 212. 2004 made in C.A.No.95 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2004 imposed under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC made in C.C.No.3895 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. It is seen that the trial court had convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each offences under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences, in default to undergo a further period of 2 months simple imprisonment for each offences. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner, who was A2 before the trial court has preferred this criminal revision petition. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 111. 1997, one TATA Sumo vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 07 L 0077 seized for transporting smuggled sandal wood at Chengalpet. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the respondent police that the petitioner/A2 along with her husband, Ammanullah, who was arrayed as A1 and one Kumaresan, a then Constable of Royapuram Police Station had conspiracy, whereby created forged documents, as if the petitioner herein had given a complaint on 011. 1976 itself that the said vehicle belonged to her had been stolen by somebody before N1 Royapuram Police Station. In Order to establish the false claim, one fabricated FIR was also prepared and to substantiate the false claim, a Xerox copy of the alleged forged FIR was produced and marked as Ex.P1, wherein the name of the complainant is stated as A. Jainap Nisha, w/o Ammanullah. 5. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined before the trial court. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.2 that FIR, Ex.P.1 bearing Cr.No.2279 of 1997 registered under Section 379 IPC was not prepared by him on 11. 1997. As per the evidence of P.W.3, Forest Officer on 111. 1997, while inspecting the vehicle, a TATA sumo, bearing Registration No.TN 07 L 0077 was found with 170 Kgs of sandal wood and that was subsequently confiscated as per procedure known to law. 1997. As per the evidence of P.W.3, Forest Officer on 111. 1997, while inspecting the vehicle, a TATA sumo, bearing Registration No.TN 07 L 0077 was found with 170 Kgs of sandal wood and that was subsequently confiscated as per procedure known to law. As per the evidence of P.W.4, Tmt. Alamelu Natarajan, learned XVI Metropolitan Megistrate, Chennai has stated that on 21.09.2000, a per the phone intimation received from the High Court, she inspected and submitted her reply. In support of her contention, Ex.P6 was marked. It is seen that Ex.P6 is the copy of the letter. P.W.6, Inspector attached to CBCID took over the investigation of this case, having received the FIR marked as Ex.P.7, examined the witnesses relating to the case in Cr.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the respondent. P.W.7 was the Forest Ranger, who has deposed that on 111. 1997, when the TATA sumo vehicle was seized, neither the petitioner/accused nor the other accused was caught by them. 6. The short point involved in this revision is whether the finding given by the Court below that the charges leveled against the petitioner/A2 under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, based on the evidence for convicting the petitioner herein. 7. It is not in dispute that there is concurrent finding given by the courts below. The Court can interfere with the concurrent finding only if it is perverse, in other words, if any finding is against the evidence or without evidence, the Court can interfere with the same, on the ground that the finding is perverse. 8. In the instant case P.W.2, constable attached to N1 Royapuram Police Station has deposed his evidence that the signature available in Ex.P4, FIR is that of his signature. The said signature has been marked as Ex.P5. He has also specifically stated that the signature available in Ex.P1, Xerox copy of the fabricated FIR does not contain his signature. Unless there is evidence to show that the signature was put by the petitioner/A2, the Court cannot presume that, the alleged FIR was singed by the family women, who is the petitioner /A2 herein. 9. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that the petitioner/A2 had claimed return of the vehicle, based on the FIR, however, for the aforesaid allegation, there is no supporting materials available on record. 9. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that the petitioner/A2 had claimed return of the vehicle, based on the FIR, however, for the aforesaid allegation, there is no supporting materials available on record. The prosecution has not marked any complaint signed by the petitioner herein to show that the original of Ex.P.1 was prepared based on the said complaint given by the petitioner herein. Though P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined on the side of the prosecution and the documents Exs.P1 to P7 were also marked in support of the prosecution case, this Court is of the view that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the charges against the petitioner under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC. 10. It is not in dispute that A1, the husband of the petitioner herein was acquitted by the court below, against which no appeal has been preferred by the respondent herein. So far the petitioner/A2 is concerned, there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to establish the charges leveled against her. It is an admitted fact that one Kumaresan, who has been the Constable attached to N1 Royapuram Police Station was reported dead, even prior to the date of framing charges, as per the prosecution case, the said Constable had colluded with the petitioner /A2 and other accused and committed the offence in preparing the forged FIR, original of Ex.P1. On account of the death of the said Kumaresan, there is no corroborative evidence available to implicate the petitioner /A2, in order to prove the charges leveled against her and therefore, I am of the view that the concurrent finding of the courts below are not supported by any acceptable evidence and therefore, it has to be construed only as a perverse finding in the eye of law. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/A2 are not legally sustainable and to meet the ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to allow the criminal revision petitioner and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/A2. 11. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/A2 under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC are set aside. The fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner/A2 shall be refunded. The revision petitioner is on bail. 11. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/A2 under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 420 IPC are set aside. The fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner/A2 shall be refunded. The revision petitioner is on bail. Her surety and bail bond shall stand discharged.