above. The basis for the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC is that accused No.1 had forged a power of attorney of Mr. K.P. Bharathan and thereafter, executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.2 as the power of attorney of Mr. K.P. Bharathan. However, a perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the power of attorney was not seized by respondent No.1. There was no comparison of the signatures of Mr. K.P. Bharathan found on the incriminating power of attorney with the sale deed executed by Mr. K.P. Bharathan in favour of M/s Siddivinayaka Builders and Developers. Therefore, unless it is made out that a false document as defined under Section 464 of IPC is made out, an offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC cannot be held to have been committed by the petitioners. In so far as offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC, it is not the case of respondent No.2 that the property in question was entrusted by Mr. K.P. Bharathan to accused No.1 and that he misusing the trust reposed by Mr. K.P. Bharathan had conveyed the property to accused No.2. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that an offence under Sections 419, 420 of IPC was committed by the
