JUDGMENT 1. This case has a very curious history for pralongation of the litigation in criminal courts. Narain Singh who was a Sarpanch of Panchayat Banathala, was prosecuted for an offence under section 161 IPC and section 5.(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 466 IPC for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/-for acquitting Nandram PW I in a complaint case filed by Gullaram before the Panchayat. The allegation against the appellant was that the judgment of conviction was written by the Panchayat on which the appellant and other Panchas had put their signatures. But later on after accepting the illegal gratification from Nandram the judgment was torn off and another judgment of acquittal was passed. About a year after the matter came to the lime light and Narain Singh was prosecuted after taking the sanction of the State Government for offences under section 161, IPC and section 5 (1) (d) (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. These proceedings stated in the year 1959. Narain Singh was acquitted of the charge under section 161 IPC and section (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but he was convicted for an offence under section 466 IPC. On appeal this Court discovered that no sanction was obtained by the prosecution for prosecuting Narain Singh for an offence U/S 466 IPC and, therefore, he was discharged. The prosecution obtained fresh sanction from the Government to prosecute the appellant for offence under section 466 IPC and a fresh trial started. 2. A plea was taken by Narain Singh that a compromise was entered between Gulla and Nandram before the judgment was pronounced and the same was- filed before the Panchayat and on that basis Nandram was acquitted. The charge of forgery which was made against the appellant was nothing but a result of political, rivalry in the village. The Secretary of the Panchayat was produced in defence to show that document Ex. D. I which is said to be a compromise deed between Gullaram and Nandram was duly produced before the Panchayat and it was on the basis of that document that previously written judgment was not pronounced and torn off and accused Nandram in that case was acquitted. Gullaram has also come in the witness box on behalf of the defence to show that there was a compromise in that criminal case between Nandram and Gullaram. Gullaram has also come in the witness box on behalf of the defence to show that there was a compromise in that criminal case between Nandram and Gullaram. 3. Narain Singh denied to have appended his signatures on document Ex. P. 1 which is said to be a judgment of conviction against Nandram. No evidence has been led by the prosecution in the second trial to show that the document Ex. P. 1 was really signed by Narain Singh. The learned Judge while deciding this question whether Ex. P. I did contain the signatures of Narain Singh relied on the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in the previous trial. This procedure is obviously erroneous and was uncalled for. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that Ex. D. 1 the alleged compromise deed between Nandram and Gullaram was signed by Nandram. His signatures are between C to D in Ex. D. 1. Nandram on whose complaint the present prosecution started, has denied , his signatures on Ex. D. 1. Defence has also filed certain other documents Ex. D. 2, Ex. D. 3 and Ex. D. 4 which contain the signatures of Nandram. On comparison of the signatures of Nandram on Ex. D. 1, Ex. D. 2, Ex. D. 3 and Ex. D. 4, it becomes very obvious that compromise deed was really signed by Nandram and his signatures between C to D on Ex. D. 1 are his genuine signatures. The signatures of Nandram on these documents were compared by the learned P. P. also and the could not dare argue before me that the signatures of Nandram on Ex. D. 1 between C to D are not genuine. On perusal of these documents it becomes clear that a compromise deed between Nandram and Gullaram was executed in that case in which the Panchayat had first torn an order of conviction but later on the complaint of Gullaram was dismissed. In view of this finding that Ex. D. 1 contains the signatures of Nandram, the plea of defence assumes a different complexion and the difference story revealed on the record appears to be correct that the judgment Ex. P. 1 though written but was not really pronounced and before it could be pronounced the compromise deed was produced which resulted in the acquittal of Nandram. In view of this finding, 5. P. 1 though written but was not really pronounced and before it could be pronounced the compromise deed was produced which resulted in the acquittal of Nandram. In view of this finding, 5. I find it difficult to sustain the/conviction of Narain Singh under section 466 IPC. 6. Narain Singh has been facing the trial in this case since 1959 and his suffered a lot and has undergone lot of agonise, in this criminal litigation. Defence case put up by Narain Singh is nearer to truth and. therefore, in these circumstances the appeal of Narain Singh is allowed. His conviction under section 466 IPC and the sentence of 5 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the said offence are set aside. 7. The appeal is according allowed. Narain Singh is on bail. He need not surrender to bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. *******