JUDGMENT 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21-1-1970 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Merta (headquarters, Nagaur) by which respondents Chandmal and Kanhaiyalal were acquitted of the offences under sections 468, 465, 471 and 474 I. P. C. Shri Chandmal respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and hence the appeal abated as regards him. 2. The prosecution case was as follows. The respondent and some other persons formed Khardia Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd. Respondents Kanhaiyalal and Chandmal were its President and Secretary respectively. Rs. 9,600 were received by the respondent on 24-6-1960 for distribution of loan to the members of the Society. Another sum of Rs. 7,600/- was received by them on 16-12-1960. Respondent Kanhaiyalal further received a sum of Rs. 6,405/- on 28-2-1965. It is alleged that most of this amount was not distributed by the respondent by way of loan and they forged numerous bonds in the name of several members of the Society acknowledging the receipt of loan with a promise for repayment. The defalcation was made to the tune of Rs. 13,465/-which was discovered by Shri Bhargava, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagaur. Shri Bhargava lodged F. I. R. of the offence in police station, Nawa on 14-6-1963. A case was registered against the respondents and after usual investigation a challan was put up in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Nawa. The learned Magistrate held the committal enquiry and after finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, committed the accused to face trial. Charges under sections 406, 458, 465, 471 and 474 IPC were framed against the respondents. They denied the offences and claimed to be tried. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge while convicting the respondents under section 406 IPC acquitted them of the remaining charges namely 465, 468, 471 and 474 I. P. C. Aggrieved by the judgment, the State has preferred this appeal. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge raised a point for determination whether the respondent forged bonds alleged to have been executed by Ramlal, Bhanwarlal, Lakh Singh, Ganesh, Moola Ram, Jairam, Doonga, Shiv Bux, Ruda, Nathuram, Chavand Singh, Hanuman Singh, Bhanwarlal, Sevaram and Devaram and further used them knowing them to be forged. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge raised a point for determination whether the respondent forged bonds alleged to have been executed by Ramlal, Bhanwarlal, Lakh Singh, Ganesh, Moola Ram, Jairam, Doonga, Shiv Bux, Ruda, Nathuram, Chavand Singh, Hanuman Singh, Bhanwarlal, Sevaram and Devaram and further used them knowing them to be forged. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further observed that the question of offences under sections 468, 471 and 474 could only arise if the prosecution is successful in proving the forgery of the aforesaid bonds. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the forgery of any bond and hence acquitted the respondents. 3. We have heard the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent Kanhiyalal and have perused the evidence and record of the case care fully. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that forgery with regard to some of the bonds was proved while it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no evidence worth the name to prove the forgery of any bond. 4. At the outset it may be stated that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness except the executors of the bonds to prove their forgery. 5. It was alleged that the bonds executed by Lakh Singh and Chavand Singh were forged. However, no evidence was led to prove that they were forged. Hence it is not proved that the bonds executed by Lakh Singh and Chavand Singh were forged. 6. The bond executed by P. W. 9 Ganesh is Ex. P. 17. However, the witness admitted the execution of this bond. Moola Ram P. W. 18 deposed that he executed the bond Ex. P. 19. P. W. 10 Jairam stated that he executed bond Ex. P. 18. P. W. 15 Dungaram admitted that he executed bond Ex. P. 57. P W. 19 Ruda also admitted the execution of bond Ex. P. 28. The bonds alleged to have been lorged in the name of Hanuman Singh are Ex. P. 37 and P. 38. However, P. W. 45 Hanuman Singh also did not dispute the execution of these two bonds by him. P. W. 7 Bhanwarlal deposed that he executed bond Ex. P. 9. Dhanna testified that he executed bond Ex. P. 2. The prosecution came forward with the allegation that bond Ex. P. 37 and P. 38. However, P. W. 45 Hanuman Singh also did not dispute the execution of these two bonds by him. P. W. 7 Bhanwarlal deposed that he executed bond Ex. P. 9. Dhanna testified that he executed bond Ex. P. 2. The prosecution came forward with the allegation that bond Ex. P. 14 was forged but its executant P. W. 58 Kishnaram admitted its execution. Thus there is no evidence at all to prove that the aforesaid bonds were forged. 7. P. W. 17 Shiv Bux stated that he did not execute the bond Ex. P. 27. However, he was not sure whether he put his thumb impression upon this bond or not. P. W. 44 Bhagirath Singh stated that he attested the bond and stood the surety in the circumstances no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the testimony of P. W. 17 Shiv Bux and therefore, it is not proved that this bond Ex. P. 27 was forged. 8. P. W. 4 Ramlal stated that he neither took the loan nor executed the bond Ex. P. 6. The witness has some enmity with the accused as there was dispute between them with regard to wages. Other witnesses Laxminarain and Kishnaram examined in this respect testified that Ramlal took the loan and executed the bond. Consequently, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that this bond Ex. P. 6 was forged. 9. Bhanwarlal P. W. 43 denied the execution of bond Ex. P. 20. This witness denied any dispute with the accused. However, P. W. 4 Ramlal who is the brother of this witness admitted that there was some dispute with the accused regarding the wages. P. W. 58 Kishnaram, P. W. 15 Dungaram and P. W. 3 Shivnath Singh have not come forward with the case that it was forged though they were examined to prove the forgery of this bond. P. W. 3 Shivnath Singh categorically stated that Bhanwarlal put his thumb impression on this bond Ex. P. 20. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the forgery of this bond. 10. P. W. 20 Nathuram denied his signatures on the bond Ex. P. 33. However, he is contradicted in this respect by another prosecution witness P. W. 21 Ghasiram who testified that Nathuram put his signatures on this bond. P. W. 58 Kishnaram also stated that the bond Ex. 10. P. W. 20 Nathuram denied his signatures on the bond Ex. P. 33. However, he is contradicted in this respect by another prosecution witness P. W. 21 Ghasiram who testified that Nathuram put his signatures on this bond. P. W. 58 Kishnaram also stated that the bond Ex. P. 32 was executed by Nathuram. The solitary statement of Nathuram, therefore, cannot be believed in view of the statements of other two prosecution witnesses namely P. 39 Dhannaram and P. W. 58 Kishnaram. 11. P. W. 7 Sevaram again came forward with the statement that he did not execute the bond Ex. P. 14. However, in his police statement Ex. D. 5 A to B he had admitted the taking of the loan and putting his thumb impression on the bond. D. W. 7 Shyam has proved the execution of this bond by Sevaram. In view of the contradiction between his statement in the court and .police statement, no credence can be attached to his testimony. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the forgery of this bond. 12. P. W. 16 Devaram has denied the execution of the bond Ex. P. 23 but in his police statement he has admitted its execution. P. W. 41 Banshidar has stated that Devaram took the loan from the Society. In these circumstances, the statement of Devaram cannot be believed in view of his earlier statement to the police in which he admitted the taking of the loan and filling of the bond. 13. P. W. 46 Dhanna also denied the execution of bond Ex. P. 73. However, in the police statement Ex. D. 8 A to B the witness admitted the filling of the bond and taking of the loan. In the circumstances it cannot be believed that the witness has not thumb impressed the bond. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that bond Ex. P. 73 was forged. 14. The aforesaid discussion therefore, clearly shows that prosecution has failed to prove that any bond was forged. Thus no offence could be made out against respondent Kanhaiyalal under section 465 or 468 I. P. C. 15. Once it is proved that none of the aforesaid bond were forged, no offence could be proved for their fraudulent or dishonest use or their possession. Therefore, the offer under sections 471 and 474 also fall through. Thus no offence could be made out against respondent Kanhaiyalal under section 465 or 468 I. P. C. 15. Once it is proved that none of the aforesaid bond were forged, no offence could be proved for their fraudulent or dishonest use or their possession. Therefore, the offer under sections 471 and 474 also fall through. In our opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly acquitted respondent Kanhaiyalal of the aforesaid offence under sections 465, 468, 471 and 474 I. P.C. We find no reason whatsoever to come to a different conclusion and disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.In the result we find this appeal filed by the State devoid of any force and dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******