ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order passed in Crl.A.No.300 of 2017, by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 27.03.2018, confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, passed in C.C.No.669 of 2013, dated 31.10.2017. 2(i).The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/A1 was the wife of the defacto complainant/PW1 and due to disputes, they obtained divorce on 19.03.2010 and she was using the Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.TN 33 AK 3737, even from the period prior to obtain divorce. One Sekar was the car driver. After the grant of divorce on 19.03.2010, when PW1 requested the petitioner/A1 and the said Sekar to handover possession of the car on 01.04.2010, they have stated that the vehicle RC was transferred to the name of the revision petitioner/A1 and on enquiry it was found that the transfer was effected on 01.10.2009 by forging PW1's signature in TO Form. Hence, PW1/de-facto complainant has preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) on 19.03.2012 and the same was forwarded to the respondent police for investigation and a case was registered in Crime No.19 of 2012 and on investigation, charge sheet laid against the revision petitioner/A1 and the said Sekar for the offence under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 109 of IPC. 2(ii).The said case was taken up on file as C.C.No.669 of 2013, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode and by an order dated 27.03.2018, the learned Judge has acquitted A2 and convicted the first accused for the offence under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 of IPC and imposed the sentence as follows: (i)for the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC, the learned Judge has imposed three months rigorous imprisonment; (ii)for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, the learned Judge has imposed two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment (iii)for the offence under Section 471 of IPC, the learned Judge has imposed two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and directed the above sentences to run concurrently. 2(iii).Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/A1 has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.300 of 2017 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. 2(iii).Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/A1 has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.300 of 2017 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. By an order dated 31.10.2017, the learned Judge has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard Mr.K.Elangovan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent police and perused the materials placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Trial Court laid the conviction based upon Ex.P4/Forensic Science Report and challenged the handwriting report given by PW5/Deputy Director of Forensic Department on two grounds: (i) A sample signature of PW1 was not obtained in the manner as prescribed under Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C.; (ii) Sample signatures of PW1 was taken at the police station since it was not obtained before the Magistrate after obtaining necessary orders and the same is vitiated. and relied upon the decisions reported in (i)CDJ 2008 MHC 6954 – K.Sankaranarayanan Vs. Special Police Establishment CBI, Madras (ii)CDJ 2014 MHC 2866 – Dr.MCR. Vyas & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch and contended that the sample signatures viz., S1 to S39, said to have been obtained by the investigating officer in the police station, have been compared by PW5, who has issued Ex.P4, is vitiated for non observance of procedure contemplated under Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would rely upon the Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows: 311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.- If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceedings under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the orders relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time or place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting. and would contend that the provisions of Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C is applicable only if a person whose signature is obtained at his arrest or stands as an accused. and would contend that the provisions of Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C is applicable only if a person whose signature is obtained at his arrest or stands as an accused. In the instance case it is not the signature of the accused and but, on the contrary, it was only sample signature of PW1 and hence, in view of the proviso to Section 311(A) of Cr.P.C, it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.It remains to be stated that the second contention challenging validity and relevancy of Ex.P4/Forensic Science Report, is as to the effect that the sample signature as well as admitted signatures viz., A1 & A2 are not in contemporary with the disputed signatures viz., Q1 & Q2. The date of the registration certificate issued for the Maruthi Car is 10.01.2008 as could be seen from Ex.P2/RC Book. 7.The disputed signature in the Form-29 [TO form] containing 30 documents, under the Motor Vehicles Act was marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is dated 30.09.2009 and the same was collected through the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the latter is dated 09.07.2012, which is wrongly typed in the judgment. The water tax receipt, which is the admitted signature marked as A1 in the Forensic Report is dated 18.11.2011 and the another private document issued is dated 01.02.2010 and sample signatures were taken in the police station after complaint given in the year 2012. 8.It is the specific case of the accused that she is none other than the wife of the defacto complainant and due to the domestic quarrel over the marriage of their daughter since the daughter has made her self choice and solemnized love marriage, the dispute arose between the husband and wife, resulted in divorce of the parents. In connection with divorce, the family elders have conducted a Panchayat and in said Panchayat there was division of property, whereby, the petition property viz., Maruthi Car was allotted to the share of the wife and the Form-19 was signed by the husband in the presence of the Panchayadhars. In connection with divorce, the family elders have conducted a Panchayat and in said Panchayat there was division of property, whereby, the petition property viz., Maruthi Car was allotted to the share of the wife and the Form-19 was signed by the husband in the presence of the Panchayadhars. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that though, PW1 denied the conduct of Panchayat, however, on behalf of the defacto complainant, PW3/ independent witness has squarely admitted the conduct of the Panchayat and division of property and hence, I find that the version of defacto complainant/ PW1 is not speaking truth and in fact, he is suppressing truth. From the version of the PW3/independent witness, I find that the suggestive case of the defence is more probable than the prosecution case for more than two reasons. 9.Firstly, the relationship between the parties are as that of the husband and wife. The Panchayat conducted by the elders of the parties regarding the divorce proceedings, has been clearly spoken and admitted by PW3/independent witnesses. Based upon the Form-19, which was issued in the presence of the Panchayatdharas, the revision petitioner/A1 has presented a paper for change of name which is marked as Ex.P3. All the documents viz.,A1, A2, S1 to S39, Q1 & Q2, which were given to the police are subsequent to the disputed signature as extracted above. The disputed signature is dated 30.09.2009. Here in the instant case all the documents are subsequent to the disputed signature. Besides a specific stand taken by the defence is that the accused is in the habit of signing the signatures differently in different occasions. 10.In order to substantiate the suggestive case of the defence, in the very same Calender Case PW1 has applied for certified copies of the documents filed by the police, in which he has filed affidavit and vakalath. The signature in the vakalath is marked as Ex.R1 while the signature in the affidavit if found to be totally different. This Court has also compared the signature found in affidavit viz., Ex.R1/vakalath and signature of PW1 for the vakalath given to the advocate and these signatures also stand differed with the sample signature. The signature in the vakalath is marked as Ex.R1 while the signature in the affidavit if found to be totally different. This Court has also compared the signature found in affidavit viz., Ex.R1/vakalath and signature of PW1 for the vakalath given to the advocate and these signatures also stand differed with the sample signature. 11.Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not taken steps to compare the the signature found in the RC book, which was marked as Ex.P2, rather than he has chosen to go by sample signature given before the police, which is much later in point of time, assumes significance. 12.Since the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is solely based upon Ex.P4/Forensic Report, I find that in view of the infirmity noted above the same is not sustainable, besides taking into consideration the fact that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13.Per contra, the revision petitioner/accused as successfully demonstrated that the suggestive case is more probable besides relationship between the parties. 14.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.300 of 2017, by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 27.03.2018, confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, passed in C.C.No.669 of 2013, dated 31.10.2017, is hereby set aside.