JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge under Sections 467, 471/114, 417/114 and 419/114, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted u/s 379, Indian" Penal Code. He was sentenced to R.I. for 3 years u/s 467, Indian Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 2500/ - or in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 6 months. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years u/s 417/114, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections. Antaryami Biswal who was tried along with the Petitioner under Sections 417, 419, and 471, Indian Penal Code was acquitted. In appeal, the conviction and sentence under Sections 467, 471/114 and 417/114, Indian Penal Code were upheld. He was acquitted u/s 419/114, Indian Penal Code. The criminal revision has been filed against the older of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Judge. 2. Prosecution case may be stated at length to appreciate the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Raghunath Naik (Petitioner) was a lower division clerk-cum-cashier in the office of the B.D.O. Telkoi, in the district of Keonjhar during the relevant period. The B.D.O. (P.W.1) was away from headquarters from 6-8-969 to 9-8-1909. The cheque book (Ext. 1) usually remains in his custody. During his absence the B.D.O. gave the cheque book to the Head Clerk (P.W.16) for comparing the same with the cash book. On his return the B.D.O. noticed on 11-8-1969 that 5 cheques were missing from the cheque book. Out of the five cheques the counterfoil of only one cheque (Ext. 2) was in the book while the other counterfoils had been removed. The B.D.O. lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 3) in Telkoi P.S. He made enquiries in the office. On 11-8-1969 the Petitioner denied his knowledge about the missing cheques. After the forgery came to light, on the morning of 14-8-1969 the Petitioner fell prostrate before the B.D.O. and begged apology. He requested the B.D.O. to give him the office jeep so that he can replace the entire amount of money covered by the cheque. The Petitioner made this statement in the presence of the Sub-Assistant Registrar, Land Development Bank (P.W.2) and the Head Clerk of the B.D. D's office (P.W.16). On investigation it transpired that one of the missing cheques (Ext. The Petitioner made this statement in the presence of the Sub-Assistant Registrar, Land Development Bank (P.W.2) and the Head Clerk of the B.D. D's office (P.W.16). On investigation it transpired that one of the missing cheques (Ext. 4) had been filled up by the Petitioner for Rs. 5910.70 in favour of Tirthabasi Sahu who admittedly takes contracts from the B.D.O. The signature of the B.D.O. on the cheque was forged. The Petitioner with the co-accused Antaryami Biswal (acquitted in the trial Court) went to the District Treasury, Keonjhar on 8..:8-1969 and requested the permanent Treasury Accountant Kapila Sahu (P.W.12) to pass the cheque. As there was no time, the cheque could not be passed on that day. On 9-8-1969 the Petitioner approached Ramakanta Das (P.W.13) who was in' charge of the Treasury Accountant that day and requested him to pass the cheque. He represented that the co-accused Antaryami Biswal was Tirthabasi Sahu, the endorsee of the cheque. The cheque was passed being duly signed by the Treasury Officer. The Petitioner and the co-accused went to the Enfacement Clerk of the Treasury, Basudeba Nanda (P.W.15). Antaryami signed the enfacement register as Tirthabasi Sahu and received the cheque (Ext. 4) from him. The Petitioner identified Antaryami Biswal as Tirthabasi Sahu. The Petitioner used to attend the Keonjhar Treasury on many prior occasions in course of official duty and he was well-known to the treasury staff. (P. ws. 12, 13 and 15). On 8-8-1969 the Petitioner and the co-accused remained at Keonjhar Lodge of which p. w.6 was the Manager. The Petitioner signed the register of the Lodge. The Petitioner stayed there for a short-time and went somewhere else while Antaryami left the Lodge in the evening of 9-8-1969. While the Petitioner was under arrest, he led the I.O. to his house at Gobargada and produced cash of Rs. 1621. 75 in the presence of Mukunda Mahanta (P.W.11) and another on 14-8-1969. The I.O. seized the admitted and specimen writings of the B.D.O. and the Petitioner and sent them to the handwriting expert for comparison with the handwriting and signature appearing on the forged cheque. 1621. 75 in the presence of Mukunda Mahanta (P.W.11) and another on 14-8-1969. The I.O. seized the admitted and specimen writings of the B.D.O. and the Petitioner and sent them to the handwriting expert for comparison with the handwriting and signature appearing on the forged cheque. The hand writing expert gave opinion that the body of the cheque was filled up by the Petitioner and the purported signature on the cheque was not of the B D.O. He however could not say whether the alleged signatures of Tirthabasi Sahu on the back (If the cheque and other documents were of Antaryami. The defence was a complete denial. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after thorough and careful analysis of the - evidence recorded the following findings: (1) The cheque book (Ext. 1) was not kept under lock and key and was kept either on the table of the B.D.O. or the Head Clerk; (2) The Petitioner is present at Keonjhar on 8-8-1969 and 9-8-1969 and he was absent from the office at Telkoi on those two days; (3) The Petitioner identified the endorsee of the cheque to the treasury staff (4) The signature of the B.D.O. was forged on the cheque; (5) The writings appearing on the forged cheque (Ext. 4) were in the handwriting of the Petitioner; (6) The Petitioner made an extra-judicial confession before PWs. 1, 2 and 16 on 14-8-19(.9 that he had committed mistake, he should be excused and he would pay the entire money; (7) The Petitioner while in the custody of the police took the I.O. to his house and brought out Rs. 1621. 75 from a suitcase and made over the same to the I.O. (P.W.17) in the presence of P.W. 11. It is highly probable that the Petitioner kept a portion of the money which he had received along with another person by encashing Ext. 4. 4. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with all the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge excepting on finding No. 6. He did not accept the extra judicial confession on the ground that it was made before the superior officer. 5. Mr. Palit for the Petitioner did not assail finding Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 1. He challenged the correctness of finding No. 4. He did not accept the extra judicial confession on the ground that it was made before the superior officer. 5. Mr. Palit for the Petitioner did not assail finding Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 1. He challenged the correctness of finding No. 4. It is therefore necessary to examine whether finding No. 4 was factually correct and if the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting finding No. 6. 6. Section 24 of the Evidence Act runs thus: A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person 'in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. The factual and legal aspects of the matter are to be examined. The confession was made before the B.D.O. (P.W.1), the Sub-Assistant Registrar, Land Development Bank (P.W.2) and the Head Clerk (P.W.16). All the three are very respectable persons and there is no reason why their evidence would be disbelieved. In fact both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. After going through the evidence of all these witnesses I am satisfied that the factual finding recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that such an extra-judicial confession was made is unassailable. The question for consideration however is whether the extra-judicial confession is hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Doubtless the B.D.O. is a person in authority so far as the Petitioner is concerned who worked under him as the clerk-cum-cashier. The onus is on the Petitioner to establish that the confession was caused by inducement threat or promise, and it is further to be proved that they were sufficient to influence the accused to make the confession by entertaining an idea that he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature: In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner does not allege inducement, threat or promise. On the contrary he says that he did not make such a statement. On the contrary he says that he did not make such a statement. On the plea taken by the Petitioner conclusion is irresistible that there was no inducement, threat or promise on the part of the B.D.O. to extort the extra-judicial confession. The confession having been found to have been factually made, it is a very important piece of incriminating evidence to implicate the Petitioner. Moreover this extrajudicial confession stands corroborated by recovery of Rs. 1621. 75 given by the Petitioner in the presence of the I.O. and P.W. 11. The learned Sessions Judge acted contrary to law in rejecting the extra-judicial confession which was accepted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 7. The only question urged by Mr. Palit is that the signature of the B.D.O. was not forged on Ext. 4 and that it was genuine. Both the Courts below have thoroughly analysed this aspect of the matter and concluded on the evidence of the B.D.O. and the hand-writing expert that the signature of the B.D.O. was forged. Doubtless the Head Clerk (P.W.16) stated that he was not cent percent sure that the signature was forged and that there was great resemblance in the signature of the B.D.O. and the alleged forged signature. Unless the forged signature tears a strong resemblance with the genuine signature of the B.D.O., the cheque could not have been passed in the treasury which is usually done by comparison of the signature on the cheque with the specimen signature retained in the treasury. The evidence of P.W. 16 therefore cuts no ice. It was urged by Mr. Palit that there is no material on record to show that the admitted signatures of the B.D.O. which were compared with the forged signature were really his admitted signatures. No such question was put in cross-examination. The position was therefore accepted that the admitted signatures of the B.D.O. were his which would furnish a sound basis for comparison. I would therefore reject the contention that the signature on Ext. 4 is the genuine signature of the B.D.O. 8. Even assuming that the signature of the B.D.O. is the genuine signature, it does not assist the Petitioner's case. If the defence of the Petitioner had been that he wrote the body of Ext. I would therefore reject the contention that the signature on Ext. 4 is the genuine signature of the B.D.O. 8. Even assuming that the signature of the B.D.O. is the genuine signature, it does not assist the Petitioner's case. If the defence of the Petitioner had been that he wrote the body of Ext. 4 under the direction of the B.D.O. or the Head Clerk and the same was signed by the B.D.O., then his position might have improved. But his positive defence is that he has not at all filled up Ext. 4. 1? the finding is that he filled up Ext. 4 and went a step further in identifying the endorsee of the cheque at the treasury, then the conclusion that he fabricated a false document and committed forgery cannot be avoided. 9. It was faintly argued by Mr. Palit that Tirthabasi Sahu, the drawee of the cheque, has not been examined by the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Petitioner u/s 419/114, Indian Penal Code for non-examination of Tirthabasi Sahu. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Palit or the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no party's case that Tirthabasi Sahu was really the endorsee of the cheque and in fact he withdrew the money from the treasury. Had it been the case of the Petitioner that he identified Tirthabasi Sahu at the treasury, non-examination of Tirthabasi Sahu would have thrown some doubt as to the forged character of the cheque. The Petitioner's clear stand on this point was that he did not at all identify the beneficiary under the cheque. Therefore there was no necessity for the prosecution to examine Tirthabasi Sahu in this case. 10. Section 463, Indian Penal Code defines 'forgery' Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title; or to cause any person to part with property, or to tender into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464, Indian Penal Code defines "making a false statement", On the factual analysis given, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioner made the false document (Ext. Section 464, Indian Penal Code defines "making a false statement", On the factual analysis given, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioner made the false document (Ext. 4) with intent that the money covered thereunder may be drawn by a 'person not entitled to it. The document was prepared by him though he had no such authority in law. He committed forgery and made a false document and was therefore liable to be convicted under Sections 467-471/114 and 417/114, Indian Penal Code. 11. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed