JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. 2. According to the plaintiff, Ext.A1 agreement for sale, dated 22.04.1987, was executed in his favour by the 1st defendant through his Power of Attorney holder, the 2nd defendant. Under the agreement, the plaint schedule property is agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for Rs.5,25,000/- within one year from the date of the agreement. Alleging that the defendants committed breach of contract, the suit was filed for refund of the advance sale consideration paid, with interest and costs. Exhibit B1 dated 29.12.1983 is the Power of Attorney executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on the strength of which Ext.A1 agreement was executed by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant. According to the 1st defendant Ext.A1 agreement for sale is a concocted document created by the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and P.W3, M. Raveendran Nair. PW3 was a trusted friend of the plaintiff and the defendants and they were working together as Engineers in the Kerala State Electricity Board. When the relationship between the 1st defendant and PW3 became strained, Ext.A1 was fabricated by them, is the allegation. Thus the very genuineness of Ext.A1 is under dispute. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri T.Krishnanunni on behalf of the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Shri N.N. Sugunapalan on behalf of the respondents. 4. The court below considered as to whether Ext.B1 Power of Attorney gives authority to the 2nd defendant to sell the plaint schedule property. After construing the authority conferred under Ext.B1 Power of Attorney, the court below found that Ext.B1 does not give authority to the 2nd defendant to sell the plaint schedule property. Since the very genuineness of Ext.A1 agreement for sale is under challenge, a finding as above would be significant only if Ext.A2 is found to be genuine. 5. According to the 1st defendant, Ext.A1 agreement has been created by manipulating stamp papers which were issued from the treasury long after the date of Ext.A1. The agreement for sale, Ext.A1, is written on three stamp papers. The vendor who issued the stamp papers was examined as DW3 and the treasurer of the principal sub treasury, Thiruvananthapuram from where the stamp papers were purchased was examined as DW4. The agreement for sale, Ext.A1, is written on three stamp papers. The vendor who issued the stamp papers was examined as DW3 and the treasurer of the principal sub treasury, Thiruvananthapuram from where the stamp papers were purchased was examined as DW4. One of the stamp papers used for writing Ext.A1 is stamp bearing No.350 which bears the date 21.04.1987. The court below on a consideration of the evidence of DW4 and his admission that the date shown therein was corrected, found that the stamp paper has been manipulated. Another stamp paper used for writing Ext.A1 is the stamp paper bearing No.349 which bears the date 24.06.1986. After considering the evidence of DWs3 and 4 and also the day book of DW3, the stamp vendor, the court below concluded that DW3 was not in custody of the stamp paper during the period from 24.06.1986 till 21.04.1987. The third stamp paper used is the stamp paper bearing No.351 which bears the date 02.04.1987. DW4 has deposed that the month shown therein has been subjected to correction. The court below with reference to the consolidation register for the period from 02.12.1986 to 31.10.1987, which was summoned by the court, found that the date in the said stamp paper is also corrected. The correction on the stamp paper regarding the date is so obvious that it could be made out even with naked eye. The court below on the basis of the evidence of DWs 3 and 4, along with Exts.X3 to X5, concluded that the stamp papers used for creating Ext.A1 have been manipulated and that two stamp papers used for writing Ext.A1 were issued from the sub treasury long after the date on which Ext.A1 has been written. PW3 is an attesting witness to Ext.A1. The Power of Attorney was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as instructed by PW3. The court below found that PW3 has played a dominant role in the creation of Ext.A1. The court below took note of the fact that admittedly PW3 was a trusted friend of the 1st defendant, the plaint schedule property was purchased at the instance of PW3 and that the building therein was constructed with the help of PW3. The court below found that PW3 has played a dominant role in the creation of Ext.A1. The court below took note of the fact that admittedly PW3 was a trusted friend of the 1st defendant, the plaint schedule property was purchased at the instance of PW3 and that the building therein was constructed with the help of PW3. The court below also took note of the fact that going by Exts.X1 and X2 documents which are certain bank details regarding the accounts of the 1st defendant, it is evident that the 1st defendant was in sound financial position during the period of Ext.A1 and there was no occasion compelling him to enter into an agreement for sale in the nature of Ext.A1. The court below also took note of the fact that the price mentioned in Ext.A1 was low when compared to the market value of the property. Yet another circumstance taken note of by the court below was that, on the date of Ext.A1 agreement for sale, the 1st defendant was personally available in station and there was no necessity to get Ext.A1 executed through a Power of Attorney. Further, Ext.B1 Power of Attorney is dated 29.12.1983 whereas Ext.A1 agreement for sale is dated 22.04.1987. 6. On the evidence, the court below has rightly concluded that the genuineness of Ext.A1 cannot be upheld. The finding of the court below is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below are confirmed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the 1st defendant has moved the court below for initiating criminal prosecution against the plaintiff for the alleged forgery. He would contend that the conclusion arrived at by the court below regarding Ext.A1 could at best be only a case of lack of proof regarding the genuineness of Ext.A1 which dis-entitles the plaintiff for a decree and that would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that forgery has been committed by the plaintiff. According to him, the court below would not be justified in initiating action against the plaintiff in terms of Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, the court below would not be justified in initiating action against the plaintiff in terms of Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also contended that Section 195 of the CrPC would not be attracted in the instant case since there is no allegation that the offence of forgery, if at all any, has been committed when the document was in the custody of the court. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, the law is so well settled that Section 195(1)(b) is attracted only in a case where the offence is committed when the document is in custodia legis and not in a case where a document is fabricated and then produced in Court. We hold that Section 195 of the CrPC will not be attracted in the instant case. Therefore, if any such application filed by the 1st defendant is pending before the court below, orders shall be passed closing the same. With the above observations, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.