JUDGMENT - BHOLE, J.:---Original accused No. 2 Sharad Kapse as the appellant here. He is alleged to have forged a migration certificate as well as a mark sheet purported to be of the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal and to have cheated the University of Poona by using these forged documents and helping accused No. 1 Mohan Girme in getting admission in the college affiliated to the University of Poona. He as well as the first accused therefore were charged of the offence punishable under section 120-B read with sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 467, 420 I.P.C. The appellant was also separately charged under sections 467, 420 read with section 511 and 471 read with section 469 read with section 109 I.P.C. as well as under section 463 I.P.C. Mohan Girme the first accused wanted to join Shahu Mandir Mahavidyalaya in August 1969 and therefore sought admission to the second year in B.A. Class in that college. He had filed an application for admission representing that he had passed the Intermediate Arts examination of the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal in 1967. This, he represented on the basis of the mark sheet as well as the migration certificate purported to have been issued by the Board. He asked for the eligibility certificate on the basis of those two forged certificates. When these two certificates were sent to the Poona University Mr. Kulkarni, Controller of Examinations suspected the genuineness of the two certificates and therefore sent them for verification to Bhopal. It was found there that those two certificates were bogus and that the first accused had never appeared for the Boards examination. When the report of the Secretary of the Board, Bhopal was received by the University, they directed Shahu Mandir Mahavidyalaya to cancel the provisional admission given to the first accused. A complaint was also filed with the police charging both the accused with the offences. During the course of the investigation the specimen handwriting of the appellant was also taken in the presence of the panch witnesses and after the necessary investigation a charge-sheet was sent against both the accused. The first accused pleaded guilty. He admitted having used the certificates as genuine ones, though they were forged. During the course of the investigation the specimen handwriting of the appellant was also taken in the presence of the panch witnesses and after the necessary investigation a charge-sheet was sent against both the accused. The first accused pleaded guilty. He admitted having used the certificates as genuine ones, though they were forged. He admitted all the charges but said that he is a young lad and that he fell prey to the temptation placed before him by the appellant here. The appellant claimed to be tried and said that he did not forge the disputed documents. On the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the persecution evidence and therefore, held both of them guilty. Accused No. 1, however, was acquitted of the offences under sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. But was convicted of the offences under sections 417, 420 read with sections 511 and 471 read with section 467 I.P.C. and was sentenced to various fines as well as to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The appellant is also convicted of the offence under sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. and also under sections 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C. He was sentenced to various amounts of fine and the maximum sentence inflicted is one year. This sentence is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence passed in the other two Sessions cases. This order of conviction and sentence, therefore, is challenged here. 2. The prosecution have examined Sadashiv Mulik, a clerk in Shahu Mandir Mahavidyalaya who has established that the first accused sought admission to the college and produced the documents, which were given by the first accused. He produced the application for admission to the college as well as the forged certificates there. We have then the evidence of Pandit Kulkarni of the Poona University, who has stated that the mark sheet as well as the migration certificates were received from the college. He because of suspicion wrote a letter, which he produced, to the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. After the reciept of the report that the two documents were forged he wrote to the Principal about the results and asked him to cancel the provisional admission. He then lodged a complaint with the Police. We have then the evidence of Amrit Pradhan, who was serving in the office of the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. After the reciept of the report that the two documents were forged he wrote to the Principal about the results and asked him to cancel the provisional admission. He then lodged a complaint with the Police. We have then the evidence of Amrit Pradhan, who was serving in the office of the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. He proves the letter sent by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education to the Poona University as well a complaint sent by the secretary of the Police Commissioner, Poona. 3. This evidence, therefore, clearly shows that the first accused sought for admission and eligibility certificate from the Poona University on the basis of the forged certificate. The Secretary found out from the Boards record that the first accused did not appear for any examination of the Board and they did not issue any migration certificate or the mark sheet to him. Evidently, therefore the two certificates purported to have been issued the Bhopal Board were false and fraudulent. In addition to the above evidence we have the evidence of Namdeo Rane, upper division clerk in the district Education Office, Indore. He produced the application for leave and also for leave forms by the second accused. They are produced for the purpose of showing what the natural writing of the appellant is. Then we have the evidence of Tukaram Maniar and Shahsikant Kulkarni to establish that the specimen handwriting of the appellant was taken on different sheets of paper. The panchanama is also on record. These specimen handwritings and the natural hand writing we sent to the handwriting expert Phansalkar, who examined the writings disputed as well as admitted and found that the writing on the disputed documents was of the appellant. 4. Scrutinizing the evidence of the handwriting expert Phansalkar, we notice that he had obtained the photographs of all the disputed as well as the admitted writings. After that he compared them with the necessary magnifying apparatus and lights in different angles. The documents were examined inter se. The specimens were also examined in a similar manner. The photographs were used to facilitate the comparison. As a result of the different settings for the purpose of examining the documents he found that the writing on the disputed as well as the undisputed documents is that of the appellant. The documents were examined inter se. The specimens were also examined in a similar manner. The photographs were used to facilitate the comparison. As a result of the different settings for the purpose of examining the documents he found that the writing on the disputed as well as the undisputed documents is that of the appellant. His opinions is that the writer showed sufficient variation of formation as in the case of natural writings. Even the said variations, these being the writings of one and the same person, show among other things writing characteristics which enable one to state that they were writings of one and the same person. The different writing according to him do incorporate certain deliberate attempt on the part of the writer to put in some distortion in certain letters and letter combination to give a different pictorial appearance; but after considering all the writings he is firmly of the opinion that the writer of the disputed as well as the undisputed writings is the same. The important identifying features such as characteristics, modifications of letters and letters "G", "R","M" and "I" and letters "rme", "th" and "tee" have the habitual characteristies of the writer. The figures "4", "6", "7", "9" and "100" also show similar characteristics in both the disputed as well as the undisputed specimens. I have carefully gone through both the writings and I am convinced that the opinion given by the expert is correct. The capital "M", "G", "R" and "I" have peculiar characteristics of the writer. The combination of "ss", letter "d", figures "7", "100", "9" all have such characteristics that one cannot fail to conclude and say that the writer of the undisputed as well as the disputed writing is the same. I have also gone through the reasons given by the handwriting expert and verified them by scrutinizing all the disputed and undisputed documents and find that the reasons are quite correct. The reasons given by him are as follows :--- "Re-writings Exh. A and A-1 are in the handwriting of the persons who wrote Exh. C. The questioned writing reveal the same skill as that of the standard writings. They agree in general writing characteristics such as movement pen position, line equality, rythem, manner of commendement, combinations, simplifications, etc. Writing characteristics such relative slant, size, spacing, speed, shedding, alignment, penlifts, preparations, variations of pen pressure etc. C. The questioned writing reveal the same skill as that of the standard writings. They agree in general writing characteristics such as movement pen position, line equality, rythem, manner of commendement, combinations, simplifications, etc. Writing characteristics such relative slant, size, spacing, speed, shedding, alignment, penlifts, preparations, variations of pen pressure etc. are similar in these writings, which also exhibit such variation in form as are common to writings of one and the same writer. Manner of writing letter M with relative longer initial staff stroke, partial retrace of the slanting and characteristic lack of angularity in the joining of the slanting stroke with the terminal staff stroke with tendency towards of hook-formation reveals highly personal trait of the same writer. Letter h shows unconscious mannerism of the same writer in writing it with terminal hooks and tendency towards relative lower emplacement of the terminal of its arch in relation to the base of the staff stroke. Relative positioning of the letters "a", "n in lettering an in the word Mohan reveals unconscious mannerism of the same writer. Method of writing the word "Girme" with highly characteristic terminal modification in letter G typical commencing hook in letter A written with penlifts preceding and succeeding the same highly modified letter r showing enlarged eyelet and typical speedy lettering me with terminal elongation and tapering, reveals idiosyncrasy of the same writer. Manner of writing the word Raghunath" with letter R showing typical orientation of the oval and eyelet, the terminal downs stroke maintaining similar positioning with the staff stroke of the same letter; letter ag revealing similar relatively emplacement and characteristic terminal strokes, the large hollow loop of letter g showing similar pressed connecting curve joining to letter h letters u and n showing adjacent penlifts; letter h revealing typical tilting nath showing similar relative alignment, spacing and heights, reveals highly personal trait of the same writer. Letter f and the lettering th and te show unconscious writing habit of the same writer. The word Intermediate is highly characteristic of the writer. Letter f and the lettering th and te show unconscious writing habit of the same writer. The word Intermediate is highly characteristic of the writer. Typical relative alignment and individual modification of the letters are observed in the word passed letter a being placed much higher in position in relation to the preceding letter p lettering SS showing typical twisting of the double curve and penlifts slicent to the same, letter e with the terminal horizontal elongation and letter d in the distortion indicating inconspicuous writing habit of the same writer. The figures 3, 4, 7 and 9 are characteristic of the same writer. Similar mannerism of the same writer is observed in 100 the succeeding digits showing diminishing proportions. The similarities in individual writing characteristic are significant and sufficient to prove in combination the come on authorship of the questioned and the standard writing the letter as request writing admittedly showing sufficient deliberate characteristic. There is no significant difference in the questioned and the standard writings." 5. The handwriting expert has admitted during the course of his cross-examination some facts. The slant of figure 1 in Exh. 36/3 is more towards the right while slant in Exh. 36/4 is nearly workable. In one curve figure 9 shows more expanse than in the other. The form of letter d differs in Exh. 36/3 Ex. 36/4 and also of e. The specimen handwriting in question shows deviation from the natural free writing. The letter a in "Raghunath" is different in formation in so far as the oval in Exh. 36/3 is concerned. The oval of letter g differs similarly in these two writings. Letter h in the two shows different slants in the two writings. There is slight variation in the formation of figure 9 in Exh. 36/4. The letter r in the word Raghunath in the disputed writing is short in size an shows more slant than r in the word "Revise" in Exh. 39/1. These differences according to the handwriting expert and also according to me are caused by the writer trying to disguise his writing. If we look at the writing ss, e, g, r. i, t 7 ate it is clear that the author has a very peculiar habit of writing in the way he did. This, he did in both the disputed as well as the undisputed documents. If we look at the writing ss, e, g, r. i, t 7 ate it is clear that the author has a very peculiar habit of writing in the way he did. This, he did in both the disputed as well as the undisputed documents. If, therefore, there are some difference and variations, that will not help the defence. This is not a kind of dissimilarity which means that one handwriting is quite unlike the other handwriting. What was shown in the cross-examination was only slight variation on account of the fact that the writer was conscious of the fact that he was asked to write down the given writing and he knew that his writing will be used for the purpose of investigation of undisputed and disputed documents. 6. After carefully scrutinizing therefore all the handwritings along with the reasons given by the handwriting expert I am of the view that the writing on the migration certificate as well as on the mark sheet is that of the appellant. There is, therefore, no substance in this appeal. 7. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and dismiss this appeal. Sentence in this appeal shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 609 and 610 of 1973. ------