including the 81 Enquiry Report and the documents submitted by the prosecution. It is clear from the receipt, dated 30.04.2006, which is signed by the Secretary of the H.H.583, Nallavan Palayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society in serial No.270088 that one Zarina, wife of the fifth accused had paid the entire amount due in respect of the subject matter loan, whereby, it is seen that the loan amount of Rs.62,417/-, and interest amount of Rs.13,715/-, penal interest of Rs.525/and charges of Rs.100/- in all totalling to Rs.76,792/- has been received. The same was done on 30.04.2006 itself, while the complaint, in this case, has been forwarded as if the amount remains unpaid and the society has been put to loss only on 11.08.2006 ,which is factually incorrect. In that view of the matter, the very basis of the charge is factually erroneous and therefore, the said fact has been overlooked by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court and therefore, the I am of the view that in exercise of the powers of revision, this is a fit case for interference and I hold that in view of the repayment of the money coupled with the fact that no false claim of any survey numbers is made, by producing any forged document, A1 and A5, in this case, did not commit any offence whatsoever and therefore, the findings of the guilt by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court is erroneous.
