ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - On 19-6-1964, one Chet Narain Dubey, who had a Savings' Bank Account No. 165142 at the Head Post Office at Allahabad at one time, had died without leaving any widow or issue. His property rights devolved on his brother Ram Achat Dubey (PW 18). A pass book (Ex. 1), showing a deposit of Rs. 4800.16 np up to 27-5-1959, on which date the entries in this pass book end, was said to be missing. Several months later, the Appellant, Ram Kripal, a peon in Tehsil Kadipur in Distt. Sultanpur, was found in possession of that pass-book with the help of which he is alleged to have committed the various offences Under Sections 419/511 and 465 and 468 and 471 IPC for which he has been convicted. It has been proved, from the entry in the ledger kept at the Head Post Office at Allahabad (Ex. 6), that account No. 165142 of Chet Narain Dubey had been closed on 16-1-1962 after the whole balance on that date in the account had been withdrawn and that there was no Savings' Bank Account of Chet Narain Dubey at all at the Post Office after that. Nevertheless, the Appellant is alleged--to have tried to get a non existing account of the deceased, Chet Narain Dubey, transferred from Allahabad to Kadipur on the strength of the out of date passbook (Ex 1). For this purpose, he is alleged to have made the application dated 7-10-1964 (Ex. 4) for the transfer of the account. This application, purporting to have been signed by the alleged depositor Chet Narain Dubey, is on a printed form and the incorrect entries filled in show that the Savings' Bank Account No. 165142 had a balance of Rs. 4800.16 np. of which transfer was sought, from the Allahabad Head Post Office to Kadipur Post Office. It also contains, under the appropriate heading, three purported specimen signatures of Chet Narain Dubey with the date 7-10-1964 given below these. This application is said to have been presented to Suraj Bux Singh, PW 10, Savings' Bank Account Clerk of Kadipur Post Office, in Sultanpur, to whom the Appellant is said to have given out that he was Chet Narain Dubey himself. The Post Office at Kadipur, after a counter-signature of the Sub-Postmaster, forwarded the application, together with the pass book (Ex. The Post Office at Kadipur, after a counter-signature of the Sub-Postmaster, forwarded the application, together with the pass book (Ex. 1), by registered post to the Head Post Office at Allahabad. On 4-11-1964, Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, sent back the application to the Sub-Postmaster on the ground that the signature on it differed from that on the records of the Post Office at Allahabad. He directed that the signature on the application should be attested by a post office official. Suraj Bux Singh, PW 10, after informing the Appellant that there was an objection to the application, returned it with the pass book to him. The Appellant then approached the postman, Ambika Prasad, PW 8, who, apparently accepting the representation made by the Appellant himself, without making any further inquiry, attested and signed this application showing that it was made by Chet Narain Dubey and returned it to the Appellant. It was sent again to Allahabad. It appears that Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, Savings' Bank Ledger clerk at the Head Post Office, Allahabad, still not feeling satisfied with this attestation returned it again on 26-11-1964. Thereafter, on 1-12-1964, the Appellant himself appeared at the Savings' Bank counter of the Head Post Office at Allahabad and presented the pass book (Ex. 1) along with a withdrawal application (Ex. 2) to Baleshwar Lal, PW 1. The withdrawal application (Ex. 2) was also on a printed form and purported to have been signed in Hindi, like the previous transfer application of the supposed Chet Narain Dubey. The date, I--12--1964 and other particulars are in English. The application, wrongly showing Rs. 4800.09 np as the existing balance in account No. 165142, was for the withdrawal of Rs. 4795/- only. It appears that Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, detected the difference between the signature in Hindi on the withdrawal application and the specimen signature chit of Chet Narain Dubey (Ex.3) in Hindi pasted on the signature book kept at the post office. His evidence also discloses that the Appellant, thereafter, tried to convince Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, that he was the depositor Chet Narain Dubey himself and produced the transfer application (Ex. Ka 4) in the course of this attempt. Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, then passed of the papers to Sri Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, who, alter comparing the signatures, made an endorsement on the withdrawal application that the signatures differed. Ka 4) in the course of this attempt. Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, then passed of the papers to Sri Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, who, alter comparing the signatures, made an endorsement on the withdrawal application that the signatures differed. This endorsement was also signed by Baleshwar Lal, PW 1. Then, Sri Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, the Assistant Postmaster at the Head Post Office was consulted. He also found that the signatures differed and signed the endorsement. The papers were returned to the Appellant after telling him that the signature on the application differs from the specimen kept. The Appellant then left the Post Office. But, soon he re appeared with the accused Sheo Murat Lal, the Sub-Post Master of Cheoki, who told Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, that he knew the Appellant personally and could identify his signature. The Appellant and Sheo Murat Lal were then taken to Sri Jamuna Prasad PW 13 and in his presence, Sheo Murat Lal wrote on the withdrawal application as follows: "Chet Narain Dubey is personally known to me. He has signed before me." Sheo Murat Lal then signed and dated this endorsement. He also described himself in writing as S.P.M. Cheoki on leave." It appears that Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, accepted this attestation. But, at this stage, Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, divulged, after looking into the ledger more thoroughly that there was an endorsement in his own writing: "depositor died." On enquiry from him, Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, found that this endorsement had been made by Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, long ago because somebody had given this information at the Head Post Office. The matter was then taken to Rasik Behari, PW 12, the Deputy Post Master, who examined the ledger and found that the account of Chet Narain Dubey had actually been closed on 16-1-1962. Sri Rasik Behari, PW 12, then called the Appellant who, upon inquiries from him, at first represented himself to be Chet Narain Dubey, but, after having been confronted with entries stated that he was Laxmi Narain Dubey son of Chet Narain Dubey. Sri Rasik Behari, PW 12, then called the Appellant who, upon inquiries from him, at first represented himself to be Chet Narain Dubey, but, after having been confronted with entries stated that he was Laxmi Narain Dubey son of Chet Narain Dubey. It is remarkable that the Appellant was allowed to disappear even after the detailed enquiry by Sri Rasik Behari, PW 12 and that a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Cannington only on 15-3-1965 at 3 p.m. The ground for the delay in making this report to the police station was given by the Post Office officials to be that a sub postmaster being involved in the affair a report had to be made to the higher authorities of their department before taking any further step. 2. The accused sub-post master, Sheo Murat Lal, who was charged with abetment of cheating and forgery, by attesting the signatures on the withdrawal application, admitted the attestation by him. He stated that he had gone to Allahabad to draw his salary and that he met the Appellant Ram Kripal by chance on the way. He also stated that the Appellant had represented that he was in great difficulties as he wanted to get his daughter carried, but the post office officials were harassing him. He stated that, when the Appellant showed him the previous transfer application and the attestation of the postman Ambika Prasad, PW 8 countersigned by the post master of Kadipur, he felt satisfied and agreed to verify the signatures as genuine. He, however, admitted his mistake in making the verification so lightly. Sheo Murat Lal was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial court perhaps to easily. There was, however, no appeal by the State against this acquittal. 3. The Appellant, however, denied all connection with the offence and pleaded ignorance of the reason why he had been implicated. He added, rather in consistently, that he had been implicated due to "Ranjish" and also in order that the post office employees may protect themselves. But, he led no evidence whatsoever to show how or why he had incurred the displeasure of the post office officials or employees. Even his attempt to prove that he was at the Tehsil Kadipur on 1-12-64 to draw his pay on that date failed miserably. But, he led no evidence whatsoever to show how or why he had incurred the displeasure of the post office officials or employees. Even his attempt to prove that he was at the Tehsil Kadipur on 1-12-64 to draw his pay on that date failed miserably. He was arrested at the Tahsil in Kadipur on 30-4-1965 by constable Ayodhya Singh, PW 3, made bapardah and lodged in the lockup at police station Kadipur at 11.50 a.m. From there, he was sent bapardah, to the district jail, Sultanpur, on 1-5-1965, at 7.15 a.m. on 14-5-1965, he was brought bapardah in a train which reached Allahabad late at night. He was shown to have been taken to police station Kotwali bapardah at 12 midnight. But, as there was to be no place at police station Kotwali at that time he was lodged at police station Daraganj at 7.40 a.m. He was sent to Naini Jail on 15-5-1965 bapardah. He was put up for identification on 7-6-1965 and he was correctly identified by Rasik Behan, PW 12, the Deputy post master, by Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, Baleshwar Lal, PW 1 and Ram Narain Yadav, PW 11, a packer, who was working at the head post office on 1-12-1964. Out of this five witnesses at the test identification parade, only Jamuna Prasad PW 13, failed to identify him. The identifying witnesses have deposed that the did not know the Appellant from before, that they had no opportunity of seeing him on any occasion between the 1st December, 1964 and the test identification parade on 7-6-1965 and then they identified him at the trial as the man who had, on 1-12-1964, come to the head post office to withdraw money by representing himself to be Chet Narain Dubey. They had a very full opportunity of seeing the Appellant in broad day light on 1st December, 1964, for a considerable time. Their evidence of identification has not been shaken on any point. 4. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the Appellant that he is an innocent scapegoat and that the evidence of post office employees is no better than that of accomplices. I have been taken through the material evidence and have examined the possibility of a conspiracy by post office employees. 4. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the Appellant that he is an innocent scapegoat and that the evidence of post office employees is no better than that of accomplices. I have been taken through the material evidence and have examined the possibility of a conspiracy by post office employees. I find that it is impossible to tar every officer and employee at the Head Post Office at Allahabad as an accomplice. If they had all conspired to let some one withdraw a sum of Rs. 4795/- from a fictitious Savings' Bank Account which did not exist, as it had been closed long ago, the very confusing manner in which the Savings' Bank Accounts seem to have been kept, even at a Head Post Office of a city like Allahabad, would have enabled them to succeed in the object of the alleged conspiracy without much difficulty. After having sent for the original ledger in which the account of Chet Narain Dubey deceased was kept, I find, that, when the page on which this account was kept was exhausted the account was entered on the next page in the middle of the account of another depositor who was also shown as dead. It is true that the account of Chet Narain Dubey had been continued in the middle of the next page after the account of another depositor was shown as closed. But, perhaps this somewhat confusing state of accounts explains why the post office officials took so long to discover that Chet Narain Dubey was actually dead and that his account had been closed. If the accounts had been properly kept, this state of affairs would have been manifest at the very outset. There is another feature which casts some doubt on the integrity, or at least, the competence of Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, who admitted that he prepared, "by mistake", a completely new but wrong pass book (Ex. Ka 5) of account No. 165142 showing Rs. 4800.16 np in the account of Chet Narain Dubey as it stood on 27-5-1959. It is not clear how and why he prepared this new pass book "by mistake". He stated that it had not been signed by the Deputy Postmaster and had not been issued at all because it did not even reach the Assistant Postmaster. 4800.16 np in the account of Chet Narain Dubey as it stood on 27-5-1959. It is not clear how and why he prepared this new pass book "by mistake". He stated that it had not been signed by the Deputy Postmaster and had not been issued at all because it did not even reach the Assistant Postmaster. Even if this was so, it is difficult to find out the purpose and the occasion for the preparation of this pass book which could certainly have been used to create the false impression which the Appellant himself is also shown to have tried to give, by using the out of date pass book (Ex. 1), that there was an existing account of Chet Narain with money in it. However, even if the conduct of Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, is not entirely above board and that of Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, in accepting the attestation of Sheo Murat Lal, could also be said to be suspicious or at least, careless, I am unable to find the slightest reason to doubt the integrity or honesty of Jogesh Chandra Bhatta (PW 6) or of Rasik Behari (PW 12). The two last mentioned officers of the post office cannot possibly be characterised as either conspirators or accomplices. Their carefulness and vigilance foiled the attempts of conspirators even if, for the sake of argument, an unproved conspiracy is assumed to have existed for enabling the Appellant to withdraw money. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then attacked the evidence of identification. He tried to contend, on the basis of nothing more substantial than the evidence that considerable time was shown to have been taken in moving the Appellant from Allahabad Railway Station to Daraganj Police Station and the bare assertion of the Appellant that he was shown to the witnesses at the Cannington Police Station, that the Appellant must have been shown to the identifying witnesses. He submitted that the explanation, that the Appellant was first taken to the police station Kotwali, at Allahabad, where there was no accommodation and then to police station Daraganj, is false. He submitted that the explanation, that the Appellant was first taken to the police station Kotwali, at Allahabad, where there was no accommodation and then to police station Daraganj, is false. The evidence of identification of the Appellant was also challenged on the ground that an identification after several months could not be relied upon even though the Appellant was said to have seen for a considerable time at the head post office at Allahabad trying to convince the officers and employees of the Postal Department that he was Chet Narain Dubey. I, therefore, looked at the Appellant Ram Kripal who was present in the court during arguments, found that the Appellant has an appearance, with his small moustaches and short stature, which seems difficult to forget. It could not be overlooked as the Appellant was seen for a considerable time in broad day light and was subjected to close questioning during which the attention of the officers concerned must have been glued to his countenance. Again, the time at which he was brought to Allahabad at night also makes it unlikely that identifying witnesses could have been assembled at Cannington police station at that time for looking at the Appellant. Considering the unimpeachable character of the testimony of Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6 and Rasik Behari, PW 12, I have no hesitation in rejecting the suggestion that the Appellant was shown to these witnesses when they stated that he had not been shown to them at the Cannington thana. Even if the integrity of some of the employees at the Post Office could be suspected, the correctness of the evidence of these two witnesses could not, in my opinion, be doubted at all. Moreover, their evidence of identification is strongly corroborated by the above mentioned evidence of Suraj Bux Narain, PW 10, the Savings' Bank clerk at Kadipur and of Ambika Prasad, PW 8, the postman in Sultanpur, who knew the Appellant well by slight although they said that they did not know his name. Even the statement of the acquitted accused Sheo Murat Lal shows that there was no question of any mistaken identity at all in this case. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant frankly conceded finally that he could not place Jogdesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6 and Rasik Behari, PW 12, in the category of witnesses who could be described as accomplices. Even the statement of the acquitted accused Sheo Murat Lal shows that there was no question of any mistaken identity at all in this case. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant frankly conceded finally that he could not place Jogdesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6 and Rasik Behari, PW 12, in the category of witnesses who could be described as accomplices. Nevertheless, it was submitted that, inasmuch as the officers as well as other employees at the Head Post Office, Allahabad, allowed the Appellant to leave the post office and did not hand him over to the police immediately, they could not be impartial. It was contended that it may be possible that here was an attempt to throw the responsibility upon the shoulders of an innocent man for the commissions and commissions of officers and employees at the Head Post Office. It is true that the first information report was delayed. The intervention of Sheo Murat Lal, a Sub-Post master, appears to have confused and puzzled the post office officials. Nevertheless, they ought to have certainly got the Appellant arrested after he had admitted that he was not Chet Narain Dubey. However, a remissness in the performance of such a duty by them goes not, in my opinion, affect the credibility of the evidence of those Post Office Officers and employees, both at the Head Post Office at Allahabad and at Kadipur in Sultanpur, who could not possibly have had a hand in any attempt by the Appellant to obtain Rs. 4795/- by cheating. I see no reason Whatsoever to reject the testimony of so many employees of the postal department, including that of responsible officers, who could have no possible motive to implicate the Appellant if he was really innocent. 7. It has been contended that the manner in which the Appellant got hold of the out of date pass book (Ex. 1), showing an amount of Rs. 7. It has been contended that the manner in which the Appellant got hold of the out of date pass book (Ex. 1), showing an amount of Rs. 4,800/- standing in the account of Chet Narain Dubey in 1959, the way it a which a new pass book was prepared without look into the state of account after 1959 and the bold manner in which the out of date pass book and that transfer application and the withdrawal form were sought to be used to withdraw money, indicate that some employees of the postal department must have had a hand in the commission of the offences and that the Appellant was merely an ignorant tool used by them. It is pointed out that the Appellant did not know the English language in which the transfer and the withdrawal applications are printed. It is also suggested that the Appellant could not have got hold of the out of date pass book without the help of the employees of the postal department. In reply, it was rightly pointed out that no such defence was taken by the Appellant. He never pleaded that he had acted on anybody's instructions ignorantly and innocently. He just denied all concern with the affair quite falsely. The prosecution had produced Ram Achal Dube, PW 18, the real brother of Chet Narain Dube, deceased, who said that one Janak Dulari was friendly with Chet Narain Dubey, that Chet Narain's old pass book of a Savings' Bank Account was found missing and that the Appellant was the pairokar of Janak Dulari in litigation. It was, therefore, urged by the prosecution that the Appellant must have procured the out of date pass book (Ex. 1) through Janak Dulari. It was suggested, on behalf of the prosecution, that Janak Dulari was in the keeping of the late Chet Narain Dube who may given the old pass book to her in order to induce her to believe that he had some money which he would give her. There is no direct evidence to prove all this. 1) through Janak Dulari. It was suggested, on behalf of the prosecution, that Janak Dulari was in the keeping of the late Chet Narain Dube who may given the old pass book to her in order to induce her to believe that he had some money which he would give her. There is no direct evidence to prove all this. However, even if the Appellant was used either by Janak Dulari or by somebody else as an instrument' for obtaining money from a non existent savings' bank account by fraud, his own knowledge of and intentional participation in the fraud and his dishonest object are amply established by the false representations made by him, the subsequent admission that he was not Chet Narain Dubey followed by another false representation that he was his son and the mendacious denial at the trial of any connection with the affair. 8. An attempt was made to argue that, as no offence u/s 419 IPC could be committed when no account of Chet Narain Dube existed on 1-12-1964 at the Head Post Office at Allahabad, there could be no attempt to commit it. This contention is unsound. An offence punishable u/s 419 IPC is made out when there is a cheating by personation as defined by Section 416 IPC. Cheating itself is defined by Section 415 IPC as follows: 415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 9. It is not necessary, for proving an offence of cheating, to show that the representations made, so as to deceive a person into making a delivery or to consent to retention of some property, were correct in any respect whatsoever. Such representations may be totally incorrect or false. To represent that there is money in an account when there is not even an existing account in which there could be any money is only a false representation. Such representations may be totally incorrect or false. To represent that there is money in an account when there is not even an existing account in which there could be any money is only a false representation. Again, it is immaterial whether the person to be deceived is under some misapprehension as to the true state of affairs. If the post office officials believed for some time, that there was some amount standing in the name of Chet Narain Dube, whereas actually the amount had been withdrawn long ago, it would not affect the criminal liability of the person who cheats or attempts to cheat in order to induce a delivery of money. It has not been proved that there was no money at the Head Post Office at Allahabad at all to enable delivery of Rs. 4795/- to the Appellant. On the contrary, it could be presumed that there was much more than that amount at the Head Post Office on 1-12-1964. As no delivery of money was made, the Appellant was rightly punished for only attempting to cheat by personation. 10. It was, however, pointed out that whenever Section 511 IPC is used, the punishment cannot be more than one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence if it had been committed. An offence of personation by cheating is punishable, u/s 419 IPC by rigorous imprisonment upto three years together with a fine. Inasmuch as the Appellant has been given a sentence of three years' RI u/s 419 IPC read with Section 511 IPC the award of this sentence u/s 419/511 IPC is certainly erroneous. 11. The Appellant has also been sentenced to two years' RI u/s 471 IPC for having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a document which he knew to be forged. It is apparent that the Appellant knew that the document, which he was using, was forged. It is contended that he had tried to use it as a genuine document, but as he had not been successful, it could not be said that he had actually used the document as genuine. It is apparent that the Appellant knew that the document, which he was using, was forged. It is contended that he had tried to use it as a genuine document, but as he had not been successful, it could not be said that he had actually used the document as genuine. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State contended that inasmuch as a forged document, that is to say the withdrawal application, had been actually presented and some steps were taken by the post office officers on the assumption that is was genuine, the offence of user was complete. Section 471 IPC reads as follows: 471. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. It is evident that it is the use an accused makes of the document which has to be considered. It is true that it is not required by the section that the document should be accepted and treated and used as genuine by the person sought to be deceived or that the use should be successful. But, if a user does not bear fruit at all and the attempt to deceive, by using the document as genuine, actually deceived nobody for a single moment, could it not be said that the user did not go beyond an attempt? Inasmuch as the use made by the accused is intended to be met with success, its effect or result cannot be entirely ignored. It has to be determined whether the use made of the document constituted only an attempt to use it as genuine or the completed offence of a user of a forged document as genuine. 12. The authorities examined by me on the question mentioned above are not quite consistent. There are a number of decisions, particularly of the Calcutta High Court, which seem to lay down the proposition that even the mere fraudulent and dishonest personation of a document by a person alleged to have used it as genuine is sufficient to constitute the user contemplated by Section 471 IPC. In Emperor v. Bansi Sheikh ILR 51 Cal. There are a number of decisions, particularly of the Calcutta High Court, which seem to lay down the proposition that even the mere fraudulent and dishonest personation of a document by a person alleged to have used it as genuine is sufficient to constitute the user contemplated by Section 471 IPC. In Emperor v. Bansi Sheikh ILR 51 Cal. 469 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, relying upon earlier authorities of that Court, said: ...we are of opinion that if a person puts forward a document as supporting his claim in any matter, whether the document is acted upon by the Court or used in evidence is immaterial for the purpose of constituting use of the document within the meaning of Section 471 IPC. This decision was followed in Ibrahim v. Emperor 29 Cri LJ 84 by another Division Bench of that High Court. There is a similar and earlier Division Bench decision of that High Court in Mubarak Ali v. Emperor 13 Cri LJ 449 where a head note of the report of Ambika Prasad v. Emperor ILR 35 Cal. 820 to the effect that mere presentation of a forged] document was not an offence u/s 471 IPC, was declared to be incorrect and the following passage from the judgment in Ambika Prasad's case (supra) was quoted in Emperor v. Mohit Kumar Mukerji ILR 52 Cal. 881 at p. 888 only to be explained away as "observations" which "ought not now be followed" in view of other decisions: "There was no attempt to use documents as evidence and we are hot satisfied that there was any fraudulent intention on behalf of the accused so to use them. There was certainly and attempt made to assert their genuine character after they had once been impugned and under these circumstances we cannot hold that there had been any user." 13. In Krishna Prasad Mandal v. Rabindra Nath Dina 13 Cri LJ 6, a decision which has not been explained away or expressly dissented from in any case brought to my notice, another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the mere filing of a forged document with the intention of relying on it at the trial amounts only to an attempt to use the document as genuine. In other words, mere filing of a forged document in| proceedings in a court of law could only be an attempt and not the completed offence u/s 471 IPC according to this view. 14. The cases mentioned above and others decided similarly (e.g. In re Sithava Naik of the Madras High Court, 16 Cri LJ. 703 arose out of alleged user of forged documents as evidence in proceedings in courts of law. They are perhaps distinguishable on a ground given by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in Baju Jha v. Emperor 30 Cri LJ 236 where, among other cases, Mohit Kumar's case (supra) was relied upon and it was held that the production and use of a document as evidence in a trial itself constitutes a user from which the accused must be presumed to have derived some benefit. 15. In Sajan Lall Biswas v. Emperor 22 Cri LJ 274 the Patna High Court held that, when a forged document is tendered to an Investigating Police Officer, so that the officer does or omits to do something he would not have otherwise done or omitted to do, there is a user of the document as contemplated by Section 471 IPC. In other words, the effect has to be considered. I, respectfully, concur with this view. Some act or omission, by a person other than the accused, on the assumption that the forged document is genuine, would be required for an offence u/s 471 IPC according to this view of the law. Mere presentation of a forged document, with a representation by the accused that it was genuine, would only be an attempt to commit an offence u/s 471 IPC if nothing was done or omitted to be done by anybody else to show that the document was ever treated as genuine. 16. In the case before me, I find that not only did Sheo Murat Lal, apparently accepting the Appellant's representations to him, attest the document as genuine, but Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, too accepted it, so that the document was treated as genuine by him until J.C. Bhatta, PW 6, brought some further facts to his notice. The degree of success met by the accused in using the document is quite immaterial. The degree of success met by the accused in using the document is quite immaterial. The most that could be said to be necessary to constitute a completed offence u/s 471 IPC is that the forged document should result in some act or omission by another person on the assumption that it is genuine as represented by the accused. That having happened in this case, a completed offence u/s 471 IPC was committed. Hence, the Appellant was rightly convicted of it and sentenced to two years' R.I. 17. As regards offences Under Sections 465 and 468 IPC, of which the Appellant has also been convicted. I find that there is only circumstantial evidence against the Appellant for believing that he had himself forged the signatures of Chet Narain Dubey. The evidence of Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, was quite clearly that the Appellant brought the withdrawal application actually filled up. It already contained the alleged signatures of Chet Narain Dube. No doubt, there is also evidence that the Appellant represented that the signature on the withdrawal form was made by him, as he was Chet Narain Dube, but that could be just as false a representation as others. It may be that the Appellant had forged the signatures, but there was no evidence given whatsoever by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the Appellant that the signatures of Chet Narain Dube on either the withdrawal application or the transfer application were actually made by the Appellant. After looking at the signature of the Appellant in Hindi on his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure and the forged signatures I think that there is considerable dissimilarity. It cannot, therefore, be held that the case against the Appellant u/s 465 or 468 IPC has been established beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The result is: I set aside the convictions and sentences of the Appellant Under Sections 465 and 468 IPC. I maintain the conviction of the Appellant u/s 419 read with Section 511 IPC, but I reduce his sentence from three years' RI to 18 months' RI for this offence. I maintain the Appellant's conviction u/s 471 IPC and the sentence of two years' RI passed upon him under this section. The sentences awarded shall run concurrently. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. I maintain the Appellant's conviction u/s 471 IPC and the sentence of two years' RI passed upon him under this section. The sentences awarded shall run concurrently. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The Appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender forthwith and serve out the remaining period of his sentences.