ORDER : 1. The State and the defacto complainant, namely, Subaitha beevi have filed Crl.A.(MD)No.473 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2009 respectively, against the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.141 of 2008, dated 24.03.2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, wherein the accused was ordered for acquittal. 2. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.473 of 2008/second respondent in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2009 has filed final report against the respondent/accused for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 has never entered into the agreement of sale with the accused herein. After she sold the property to P.W.2, the accused has sent a legal notice Ex.P.5, alleging that there was an existence of sale agreement. Hence, she has preferred this complaint, alleging that her signature namely, Subaitha Beevi, is forged in the alleged sale agreement said to be in favour of the accused. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that as per Ex.P.8 Forensic Report, P.W.4, handwriting expert, who had examined the questioned signature found in Ex.P.3 sale agreement with the sample signature, has opined that the signature contained in the sale agreement, marked as Q1 to Q5, does not tally with the sample signature of the Subaitha Beevi marked as S1 to S6. He further contended that the sample signatures are obtained after the date of questioned document. He also draw my attention to the cross-examination of the prosecution witness P.W.4, handwriting expert. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State, the learned counsel appearing for the accused and perused the materials available on record carefully. 6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it is seen that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and the accused is the sister's son of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, she owns a land and she sold the same to P.W.2 under Ex.P.2 on 05.04.2004. Thereafter, she received a legal notice from the accused dated 18.04.2004, wherein the accused has alleged that there was a subsistence agreement of sale between the accused and P.W.1 in respect of the suit property that has been conveyed by P.W.1 in favour of P.W.2. Thereafter, she received a legal notice from the accused dated 18.04.2004, wherein the accused has alleged that there was a subsistence agreement of sale between the accused and P.W.1 in respect of the suit property that has been conveyed by P.W.1 in favour of P.W.2. During the subsistence of the sale agreement in favour of the accused, the act of P.W.1 in conveying the property to other party is prohibited by law and accordingly, he has issued Ex.P5 legal notice. After receipt of the legal notice from the accused, it appears from the record that P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.7 First Information Report, alleging that the agreement of sale as alleged by the accused is forged document and however, alleging that the accused has indulged in forging her signature and hence, set the criminal law into motion. 7. It is seen from the records that P.W.5 Investigation Officer has taken up the case and also taken a sample signature from the defacto complainant P.W.1 and also lifted the disputed signature from Ex.P.3 alleged forged agreement of sale and sent it forensic department. It appears that P.W.4 Scientific Officer has given an opinion report, which is marked as Ex.P.8, wherein he has stated that the questioned signature Q1 and Q5 found in Ex.P.3 agreement of sale does not tally with the admitted signature, namely, sample signature, which is marked as S.1 to S.6 and hence, charge sheet has been filed. 8. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.4, Scientific Officer and Ex.P.8 Scientific Report, it is seen that the person, who wrote the red enclosed signature stamped and marked S.1 to S.6 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q5. Further, it is not possible to offer any reliable opinion on other points (this relates to the signature of the accused found in the agreement of sale, namely, alleged forged document). 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.4, Forensic Expert in the cross-examination, which is extracted hereunder:- xxx xxx xxx 10. The Investigation Officer, who examined as P.W.5 in the cross examination has stated as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 11. Thus, this Court finds that the sample signature has been taken only after 28.11.2003, which is said to have been subsequent to the sale deed effected by P.W.1 in favour of other party. The Investigation Officer, who examined as P.W.5 in the cross examination has stated as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 11. Thus, this Court finds that the sample signature has been taken only after 28.11.2003, which is said to have been subsequent to the sale deed effected by P.W.1 in favour of other party. Admittedly, when the signature has been disputed by P.W.1 in a particular document, comparison of the signature found in the document with the disputed document has to be preferred rather than the sample signature being taken at the subsequent point of time since it is very much possible for the person alleging forgery to change his signature wantonly in order to escape from the suit for specific performance as in the instant case. 12. From the cross-examination of Scientific Officer P.W.4 and the Investigation Officer P.W.5, this Court finds that the sample signature is much after the date of alleged forged document Ex.P.3 sale agreement and Ex.P.2 sale deed executed by P.W.1 in favour of P.W.2 and therefore, this Court finds that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that the sample signature taken after the subsequent date of the questioned document will not be a material for the charge of forgery is found to have been force. Since in view of Ex.P.5 legal notice issued by the accused, wherein he has specifically stated that there is an agreement of sale, during the subsistence of the said agreement, the act of P.W.1 in alienating the property to other party is bad in law and he has proposed to institute specific performance suit before the competent Civil Court and thus, the sample signature obtained by P.W.5 Investigation Officer, which is subsequent point of time to both document, namely, Ex.P.2 and P.3 cannot be a basis for arriving at whether the signature of P.W.1 is forged or not. Since P.W.1 should have been also deliberately changed the signature, while putting the signature before the police as contended by the learned counsel for the accused, is found to be possible and also reasonable. The Investigation Officer has not given any positive evidence, as to why the signature of P.W.1 as prior to the date of sale of agreement (alleged forged document) was not taken as a sample and sent for comparison by handwriting expert, which also assumes significance and the factual background of the instant case. 13. The Investigation Officer has not given any positive evidence, as to why the signature of P.W.1 as prior to the date of sale of agreement (alleged forged document) was not taken as a sample and sent for comparison by handwriting expert, which also assumes significance and the factual background of the instant case. 13. Taking into consideration of the answer elicited by P.W.3 Scientific Officer (Handwriting Expert) and the answer elicited from the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer P.W.5 that the sample signature of the defacto complainant P.W.1 was taken much after the disputed signature found under Ex.P.3, the sale agreement and the same cannot be a basis to term Ex.P.3 as a forged document. 14. Yet another point is that P.W.4 Scientific Officer has not given any positive evidence as to the signature of the accused found under Ex.P.3 forged document and the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the signature found under Ex.P3 as forged in respect of the accused is hereby confirmed. 15. In view of the reasoning as stated above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not let in any positive evidence to show that the signature of P.W.1 as found under Ex.P.3 is forged and such forgery was done by the accused. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs and in the absence of any positive evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the signature of P.W.1 found under Ex.P.3 questioned document as forged, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the report of the Scientific Officer under Ex.P.8 does not advance the case of the prosecution for the reasons as stated supra and hence, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, acquitting the accused is hereby confirmed for the different reason as stated supra. 16. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal filed by the State and the Criminal Revision Case filed by P.W.1 is devoid of merits and the same are dismissed. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.141 of 2008, dated 24.03.2008 is hereby confirmed.