ORDER : 1. On the basis of the chargesheet filed by the respondent – Police against the present revision petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, a criminal case in C.C. No.693 of 2002 came to be registered in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’). The Trial Court by its Judgment dated 22.06.2010 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and passed the Order on sentence. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the present revision petitioner who is the accused in the case, on 08.03.1995, with an intention to cheat CW1/PW2 Jayaram, offered to sell his site No.492 measuring 12 ft. x 19 ft. for a sum of Rs.75,000/and in that regard, after receiving the said amount, executed a general power of attorney in favour of the said purchaser Jayaram. Later, said purchaser Jayaram came to know that the vendor / accused Manchaiah had already executed a similar general power of attorney on 24.06.1992 in favour of one Sri Chandrakanth (CW6) and had received a consideration of Rs.72,000/as a sale consideration for the very same property. Thus the accused has cheated the complainant and committed the offence punishable under S.420 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, eleven witnesses from PW1 to PW11 were examined and documents from Exs.P1 to P20 were marked from the prosecution’s side. Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the side of the accused. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Trial Court, by its Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 22.06.2010, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.101/2010 before the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’s Court’) which Court also, after hearing both side, confirmed the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 4. Respondent is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 4. Respondent is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader. The Sessions Court and the Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. Heard arguments from both side. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in his brief arguments submitted that it has been established that the thumb impression that was found on the alleged general power of attorney said to have been executed in favour of PW11 Chandrakanth was not that of the accused, as such, some one else might have impersonated the accused and executed said power of attorney at Ex.P13 in favour of Chandrakanth. That being the case, the question of the accused already executing general power of attorney in favour of the said Chandrakanth before he executed power of attorney in favour of Jayaram as per Ex.P11 does not arise. However, both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court have failed to appreciate the evidence in their proper perspective which has led them in passing an illegal order of conviction against the accused. In his support, he relied upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which would be referred to at relevant stage hereafter. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent in his brief arguments submitted that it is established that the signatures found on Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 are of the very same accused, and further, the evidence of PW11 that it was the accused who went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar and executed the power of attorney at Ex.P13 since has remained undisputed, it is clearly established that the accused had already sold the very same property to another person before he executed a general power of attorney in favour of PW2 accepting sale consideration. Thus the act of cheating on the part of the accused has been clearly established which has been correctly held so by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge’s Court. 7. The admitted facts before the Trial Court is that the present petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of a residential site measuring 12 ft. x 19 ft. sold the same for a consideration of Rs.75,000/to complainant Sri Jayaram (CW1 / PW2), by executing a registered general power of attorney dated 08.03.1995. 7. The admitted facts before the Trial Court is that the present petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of a residential site measuring 12 ft. x 19 ft. sold the same for a consideration of Rs.75,000/to complainant Sri Jayaram (CW1 / PW2), by executing a registered general power of attorney dated 08.03.1995. However, according to the prosecution, the very same vendor/accused had also executed a similar registered general power of attorney dated 24.06.1992 which is at Ex.P13 in favour of CW6 / PW11 Chandrakanth for a sale consideration of a sum of Rs.72,000/. Thus, having already sold the immovable property in favour of another person, the accused/petitioner had executed one more general power of attorney in the form of a sale in favour of the present petitioner. Thus the only question for consideration is, whether the alleged general power of attorney at Ex.P13 was executed by the accused / petitioner? 8. The complainant Jayaram who was examined as PW2, in his evidence has specifically stated that it was through CW6/PW11 Chandrakanth he came to know that the very same property which was sold to him by the accused had already been sold to said Chandrakanth by the very same accused through a registered general power of attorney on 24.06.1992 as per Ex.P13. Thereafter, when he questioned the vendor / accused, he gave evasive answers. Thus the fact of PW5 – Radha Krishna claiming that he is the subsequent purchaser of the very same property from PW11 and PW11 also confirming the same clearly goes to show that accused has cheated him. In that connection, prosecution has also examined PW5 – Radha Krishna and PW11 Chandrakanth. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. PW11 specifically stated that he has purchased the very same property from the accused / petitioner in 1992 itself under a registered general power of attorney which he has identified at Ex.P13. He has also stated that due to financial necessities he has sold the very same property to one Sri Radha Krishna in the year 1994 under a registered sale deed. Thus he has stated that the property in question was already sold to him about three years prior to the very same vendor / accused said to have executed one more general power of attorney in favour of the complainant. Thus he has stated that the property in question was already sold to him about three years prior to the very same vendor / accused said to have executed one more general power of attorney in favour of the complainant. Said subsequent purchaser Sri Radha Krishna who was examined as PW5 also stated that he has purchased the very same property under a registered sale deed from CW6 / PW11 Chandrakanth. However, the complainant as PW2 has also stated that the very same property was also sold to him by the very same vendor under a registered general power of attorney dated 08.03.1995 which is at Ex.P11. 9. Accused has taken a specific defence throughout that he has not executed any general power of attorney in favour of CW6 / PW11 Chandrakanth. However he admitted that he has executed a general power of attorney in favour of the complainant / PW2 Jayaram as per Ex.P11 and got it registered. He has also admitted that he has sold the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.75,000/under the said general power of attorney in favour of the said purchaser Jayaram. The accused has specifically denied of he executing general power of attorney in favour of PW11 Chandrakanth as per Ex.P13. 10. In order to ascertain whether the thumb marks said to have been shown in Ex.P13 as that of the executant was of the accused, the documents with admitted and disputed thumb impressions were referred for an expert’s opinion. PW4 Sri K.R. Venkatesh, then inspector of the Finger Prints Bureau at Mysuru in his evidence has stated that he has compared the thumb impressions said to be of executant Manchaiah/accused in Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 and one more document which is the cancellation of power of attorney at Ex.P14 with that of the admitted thumb impression at Ex.P15. By his examination, he came to a conclusion that the thumb impression of the executant at Ex.P11 tallies with the admitted thumb impression of the executant at Ex.P15; however, the disputed thumb impression at Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 does not tally with admitted finger prints at Ex.P15. 11. Interestingly, the signatures of the executant in all these documents and more particularly in Ex.P11 and Ex.P13, have not been disputed by the accused and they have been proved to be that of accused / petitioner. 11. Interestingly, the signatures of the executant in all these documents and more particularly in Ex.P11 and Ex.P13, have not been disputed by the accused and they have been proved to be that of accused / petitioner. Therefore the question remains whether the expert opinion regarding the difference in the thumb impression between Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 will lead to suspect the case of prosecution. No doubt, PW4 has stated that his examination revealed that the thumb impression at Ex.P13 does not tally with the admitted thumb impression of the accused. However, the evidence of PW11 as has come out in his examinationinchief is, that he purchased the very same site from one Sri Khadir Ahmed who had already purchased the said site from the accused under a general power of attorney. Therefore on 24.06.1992, he has got the general power of attorney as per Ex.P13 directly executed by the accused himself in his favour. However, in the meantime, the accused had cancelled the general power of attorney executed by him in favour of said Khadir Ahmed as per Ex.P14. The said document Ex.P14 is also a registered cancellation deed bearing the signature of very same executant. In the crossexamination of PW11, it was not denied that accused had executed general power of attorney in favour of PW11 on 24.06.1992. The evidence of PW11 that the previous general power of attorney executed by the same vendor in favour of one Sri Khadir Ahmed was also cancelled under a registered cancellation deed which is at Ex.P14, was also not denied in his crossexamination. The further evidence of PW11 that subsequent to he getting a general power of attorney executed in his favour by the accused as per Ex.P13, he sold that property to PW5 Radha Krishna has also not been denied in his crossexamination. On the contrary, in three sentences, in the cross examination of PW11 it was suggested that the general power of attorney executed by the accused in favour of PW11 was cancelled; however, having the knowledge of the same, PW11 has sold the property to PW5 Radha Krishna. By making said suggestion that accused has cancelled the general power of attorney executed in favour of PW11, the accused himself has admitted that he has executed a power of attorney in favour of PW11 Chandrakanth, earlier. By making said suggestion that accused has cancelled the general power of attorney executed in favour of PW11, the accused himself has admitted that he has executed a power of attorney in favour of PW11 Chandrakanth, earlier. That being the case, it was for the accused to prove that he had cancelled the said power of attorney executed by him in favour of PW11. In that regard, a mere oral suggestion made to PW11 was not sufficient and accused was expected to produce some more evidence to show that a registered document in the form of general power of attorney executed by him in favour of PW11 was cancelled by him. Accused has failed to do it. Thus, it stands established that the accused had already executed a general power of attorney on 24.06.1992 as per Ex.P13 and himself had been to the Office of the SubRegistrar and got it registered. In that background, an opinion of expert as PW4 that the thumb impression at Ex.P13 was not corresponding to admitted thumb impression at Ex.P15 would not take away the case of the prosecution. Further more, admittedly, the accused has not taken any legal action against PW11 Chandrakanth or PW5 Radha Krishna who claim their title over the property in question and under registered general power of attorney at Ex.P13 said to have been executed by the accused. Appreciating all these facts in their proper perspective, both the Trial Court as well as Sessions Judge’s Court have arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon two Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2005 AIR SCW 989 and 2006 AIR SCW 2543. In the case of SURESH Vs. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANOTHER (2005 AIR SCW 989), the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the complaint by the complainant was only revealing that the allegations as contained in the complaint were of civil in nature and did not prima facie disclose commission of alleged criminal offence under S.420 of IPC. In the case of SURESH Vs. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANOTHER (2005 AIR SCW 989), the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the complaint by the complainant was only revealing that the allegations as contained in the complaint were of civil in nature and did not prima facie disclose commission of alleged criminal offence under S.420 of IPC. The said observation was made by the Hon’ble Apex Court after noticing that the complaint alleged of the appellant committing the offence of cheating under S.415 of IPC by stating that accused as a vendor was not executing a sale deed and not accepting balance consideration. However, it also noticed that complaint was filed after 7 ½ years of alleged agreement and the accused had already replied to the notice of the complainant denying the agreement and acceptance of advance consideration. Even after receipt of such a reply, the complainant remained silent for three years and then filed private complaint before the Magistrate. It is in this background, that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the alleged act would constitute a subject matter for civil litigation but cannot form an offence under S.415 of IPC. In RAM BIRAJI DEVI & ANR. Vs. UMESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR. (2006 AIR SCW 2543), though the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the complaint filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120B of IPC by exercising its power under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by observing that no guilty intension can be attributed on the part of the accused to deceive the complainant, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has made that observation considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it which was totally different from the case on hand. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the complaint was selfcontradictory and was not making out a prima facie case of any criminal offence. The complaint was making out only a civil liability, as such, no criminal liability of cheating or criminal breach of trust could be attributed. 13. Since the facts and circumstances of the case on hand totally differs from those of the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, same are not helpful to the petitioner. The complaint was making out only a civil liability, as such, no criminal liability of cheating or criminal breach of trust could be attributed. 13. Since the facts and circumstances of the case on hand totally differs from those of the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, same are not helpful to the petitioner. On the other hand, as already observed above, the present act of the accused/petitioner i.e., before he executing a registered general power of attorney as per Ex.P11 in favour of the complainant / PW2, he had already executed a similar registered general power of attorney with respect to the very same property in favour of PW11 for a valuable consideration itself would prove the deceptive intention of the accused / petitioner at the inception itself when he executed Ex.P11. Therefore since it is proved that at the time of inducing PW2/complainant to purchase the property through the registered general power of attorney as per Ex.P11 itself, the accused had deceptive intension of fraudulently making the complainant to part with a huge sum of Rs.75,000/, it is clearly established that the accused has cheated the complainant. Since both the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court after appreciating the evidence in their proper perspective have rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offence, I do not find any reason to interfere in it. The quantum of sentence ordered also since being proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Registry to transmit copies of this Order along with Trial Court and Appellate Court records to the concerned Courts, without delay.