Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant and aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 17.11.2008, made in Cr.M.P.No.123 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur has filed this revision. 2. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would indicate that the revision petitioner has filed a private complaint against all the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. and the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Based on his complaint a case in Crime No.746 of 2007 was registered. The first respondent after investigation, closed the case as Mistake of Law and the petitioner thereafter, filed the present petition, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2008, under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., challenging the legality of the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the properties in question belongs to Siddi Vinayagar Koil Trust which was created under a Will dated 23.04.1951, executed by one Govindammal and since the Trust was not properly functioning after the demise of Govindammal, the petitioner and one Ramaniammal are entitled to the property. It is further alleged that the first accused claiming to be the Managing Trustee of the Trust, with the connivance of accused Nos.2 to 9 conspired with the officials who are arrayed as accused Nos.11 to 15 and created false and forged records and obtained mutation in the patta in respect of the properties belonging to the said Trust and obtained patta in his name as Siddi Vinayagar Koil Trust represented by its Trustee S.Balakrishnan and he in turn created a lease in respect of one of the property for a period of 99 years in favour of his son. Thereby all the accused colluded, connived and conspired and committed the said offences. 4. The trial Court has recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and found that the first accused had applied with the 13th accused for carrying out mutation. So the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer after enquiry and recording the statements of witnesses during enquiry, made recommendation for mutation in the name of the first accused and thereupon based on such recommendation, the 13th accused passed order in favour of the first accused. So the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer after enquiry and recording the statements of witnesses during enquiry, made recommendation for mutation in the name of the first accused and thereupon based on such recommendation, the 13th accused passed order in favour of the first accused. The trial Court has pointed out that if really the petitioner/defacto complainant aggrieved by the acts of the officials, he would have gone on appeal. But he did not do so and the said order passed by the 13th accused has also become final. The trial Court has further stated that admittedly accused No.11 to 13 were Government Servants at the relevant point of time and they have discharged the duty in official capacity and to prosecute them the petitioner has to avail sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court also noted that the 15th accused is a charted accountant and he has discharged his professional duty by merely preparing yearly account statements and therefore, it cannot be termed as a criminal act. The trial Court on going through the statements of the witnesses, who were examined on the side of the petitioner, found that the offences said to have been committed by the accused have not been made out and thereby dismissed the private complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner/defacto complainant who was aged about 80 years as on 2010 is no more and time may be granted to take steps to file a petition to substitute the legal heirs of the revision petitioner. 6. Admittedly, it is a case of trust property. Therefore, unless the legal heirs of the private complainant are also acting as trustees, they cannot prosecute the case. In the circumstances, this Court on a careful scrutiny of materials placed before it finds that there is no illegality or infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the trial Court and also finds no merit in the revision petition. 7. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.