JUDGMENT 1. - Dayalsingh, accused-appellant has been convicted, by learned Sessions Judge, Merta by Judgment dated January 30, 1975 under sections 380, and 471, I.P.C. Under the former count, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo 1 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and under the latter count, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period spent by the accused-appellant in detention during the course of investigation and trial has been ordered to be set off under section 428, Cr. P.C. and accused-appellant has been asked to undergo only remainder of the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused-Dayal Singh and his father Jethusingh had taken loans from the State Government for purchase of tractors. On 25-8-70, a sum of Rs. 8246/-, was due against Dayalsingh, accused-appellant, while a sum of Rs. 4960/-, was due against his father Jethusingh. Proceedings for recovery of these loans were pending against both of them in the office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Jayal. P.W. 5 Makhanlal was the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jayal at the relevant time. For the recovery of the aforesaid loans, two demand notices Ex. P/6 against Jethusing for a sum of Rs. 4960/-, and Ex. P/7 against the accused-appellant Dayalsingh for a sum of Rs. 8246/- were issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jayal Under the aforesaid notices, they were asked to pay the dues by September 5, 1970.Both the notices were served upon the accused-appellant on August 25, 1970. Dayal Singh accused-appellant went to Tehsil Jayal on August 26, 1970 and presented an application Ex. P/28 in some other connection before Shri Makhanlal. On the same day, one Sardar Sulakhansingh Anti-Locust Officer came to Shari Makhanlal P.W. 5 in Tehsil Jayal. He asked Makhanlal that he was going on tour in a jeep and that he too could accompany him. Makhanlal agreed to go with him. P/28 in some other connection before Shri Makhanlal. On the same day, one Sardar Sulakhansingh Anti-Locust Officer came to Shari Makhanlal P.W. 5 in Tehsil Jayal. He asked Makhanlal that he was going on tour in a jeep and that he too could accompany him. Makhanlal agreed to go with him. At about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. P.W. 1 Dhanna Lal, office Kanugo, Tehsil Jayal came to Makhanlal and asked the Tehsildar to sign the salary bills before proceeding on tour. The salary bills were not ready and Dhannalal P.W. 1 brought some blank forms of salary bills, which were duly, signed by P.W. 5 Dhannalal obtained his (Makhanlals) signatures on six blank sheets of paper since forms G-87A were not available and, on which the proforma G-87A was to be drawn, it is alleged that Makhanlal hesitated for a moment when he signed on the blank papers and on blank forms of salary bills. Those sheets bore seals of Tehsildar (land record). When Makhanlal declined to sign those blank papers Dhannalal placed his initials below the seal. Makhanlal then signed the six blank sheets of paper and also the salary bills and proceeded on tour. It is not disputed that in the jeep along with Anti-locust officer and Tehsildar Makhanlal P.W. 5 some other employees of the Tehsil also went. It is alleged that when the Tehsildar placed his signatures on six blank sheets of paper at that time accused-appellant was present in the office. When the Tehsildar left on tour Dhannalal P.W. 1 brought the six blank sheets of paper duly signed by the Tehsildar P.W. 3 Makhanlal in his offices and placed them on his table. It is alleged that the accused entered the office of Dhannalal and on the next day when the sheets of papers were searched, only four sheets bearing the signature of the Tehsildar were available, but, two sheets of blank papers bearing the signature of the Tehsildar (land Record) were found missing. A report Ex. P/21 was lodged by Dhannalal P.W. 1 before the Tehsildar on August 28, 1970 that in spite of search, the two missing sheets with signature and seals of the Tehsildar (L.R.) could not be located. 3. As stated earlier, within the time granted under Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 both the accused-appellant and his father did not make payment of the dues. 3. As stated earlier, within the time granted under Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 both the accused-appellant and his father did not make payment of the dues. On September 26, 1970 two warrants of attachment of the property of the defaulters namely accused appellant and his father were issued by Makhanlal and the standing crops in execution of the warrants were attached. They were put to auction for the first time on October 9, 1970 and at that time the accused-appellant is said to have given out that on 26-8-70 he had paid his dues, It appears that the auction was stayed. On enquiry by Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector they came to the conclusion that the receipts Ex P/1 and Ex. P/2 though bear the signatures of Makhanlal were forged and no payment had been made by the accused to Shri Makhanlal, A finding was also arrived at that the two full blank sheets of which were missing were cut down to smaller size by the accused and false receipts Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 were forged by the accused appellant on those two sheets. The Sub-Divisional Officer lodged a report in police station Khatu District Nagaur on Feb. 3, 1971, Ex. 3. A case was registered against the accused-appellant and the investigation was set in motion. At the request of Investigation Officer, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar under Section 94, Cr. P.C. called upon the accused-appellant Dayalsingh to produce the receipts and thus, two receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 were produced by the accused-appellant before the S.H.D., the investigating Officer of the case. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate, who committed the accused-appellant to learned Sessions Judge, Merta for trial. 4. Learned Sessions Judge on May 22, 1974 framed charges under sections 380, 467 and 471, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of the prosecution case, as many as 12 witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under section 313, Cr. P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused-appellant is that Ex. P/l and Ex. 5. In support of the prosecution case, as many as 12 witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under section 313, Cr. P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused-appellant is that Ex. P/l and Ex. P/2 were genuine and not forged documents and he paid the amount to Makhanlal P.W. 5 who got the receipts scribed by one babu (clerk) of the Anti-Locust Department, who accompanied the Anti-Locust Officer but whose name is not known. According to the accused-appellant, P. W. 5 Makhanlal stayed in village Loonsar at his house on August 26, 1970 and it was in his house that he had paid the amount to the Tehsildar vide receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. 6. Learned Sessions Judge as already stated earlier convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. He did not place any reliance on the defence of the accused-appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned public prosecutor for the State at length. 8. The first contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that the case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence which circumstances, according to learned Sessions Judge are borne out on the record against the accused-appellant. The law is settled that in a case, based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstances by cogent and reliable evidence and circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words the circumstances found proved against the accused must be clinching i.e. the circumstantial evidence must be compelling. 9. The contention of learned Advocate for the accused-appellant is that no offence under section 380, I.P.C. is made out. It may be stated that there is no direct evidence that the accused-appellant committed theft of two sheets of paper bearing seals of the Tehsildar (L.R.) and signature of P.W. 5 Makhanlal. Dealing with the case under section, 380, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant, learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on these circumstances:- 1. That the accused-appellant and his father Jathusingh were highly indebted to the State Government and notices of demand Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P/7 had been issued for recovery of the amounts. 2. Dealing with the case under section, 380, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant, learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on these circumstances:- 1. That the accused-appellant and his father Jathusingh were highly indebted to the State Government and notices of demand Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P/7 had been issued for recovery of the amounts. 2. That the accused was present in the office of P.W. 5 Makhanlal, Tehsildar, Jayal when P.W. 1 Dhannalal got signatures of Makhanlal on six blank sheets of papers bearing seals of Tehsildar (Land Record) and initials of P. W. 1 Dhannalal. 3. That the accused-appellant had entered the office of Dhannalal, Office Kanugo and was seen coming out, and the two sheets out of six were found missing. 4. That the receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 have been produced by the accused-appellant who thus got in possession of two blank sheets immediately after Makhanlal placed his signature on them. 10. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the case of the prosecution is that the two blank sheets of paper which were signed by P.W, 5 Makhanlal also bore initials of P.W. 1 Dhannalal. According to learned Advocate a look at Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 shows that there are no initials of Dhannalal P.W. 1 over them and that the two missing sheets of blanks papers are not linked with sheets on which Ex. P/1 and P/2 are written I will later on advert to details about the effect of missing of the initials of P.W, 1 Dhannalal from Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. Suffice it to say that a cursory look at Ex. P./l and Ex. P./2 would make it clear that some body clearly tore the sheets just below the seals of tehsildar (land record) as to show that Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 do not bear the initials of Dhannalal P.W. I, Therefore, in my opinion, Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 appear to have been written on a part of two blank sheets of paper which were signed by Makhanlal and were missing from the P.W. 1 Dhannalal. P/1 and Ex. P/2 do not bear the initials of Dhannalal P.W. I, Therefore, in my opinion, Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 appear to have been written on a part of two blank sheets of paper which were signed by Makhanlal and were missing from the P.W. 1 Dhannalal. If this circumstance is looked into along with other circumstances, which have been found by learned Sessions Judge against the accused-appellant, and I agree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, to my mind, it can be conclusively said that the two blank sheets of paper bearing the signature of Makhanlal P.W. 5 and the initials of Dhanna Lal, P.W, 1 meant for preparation of Form G. 87A to be attached with the salary bills were stolen away by the accused-appellant and none-else Much stress has been said on the point that P.W. 1 Dhannalal did not state in police statement Ex. P/5 about the presence of Dayalsingh in office room of Makhanlal PW5 at the time when the blank sheets were signed by Makhanlal. A similar argument was advanced before the learned Sessions Judge but this minor omission not amounting to contradiction has been discarded by him and rightly so. Even the accused has stated that he was present in the office of Tehsildar Jayal on August 26, 1970. He admits that he was in the office of Tehsildar, Jayal on 26-8-70 and he had also gone to the office Kanugo Dhannalal and was seen going out. Therefore, the presence of the accused when Makhanlal signed the six blank sheets; the fact of the accused-appellant being seen immediately thereafter in the office of Dhannalal and also going out, the fact that there were dues against the petitioner and his father and the accused produced receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 on October 9, 1970 are established from the statements P,W. 1 Dhannalal, P.W. 5 Makhanlal, P.W. 2 Peerararn ami P.W. 6 Sabir Hussain. The circumstances proved are of conclusive nature and make out a case of theft against, the accused. They are not capable of any reasonable explanation. Thus accused has been rightly convicted under sec. 380, I.P.C. 11. Now the question is as to whether an offence under section 471, I.P.C. is made out against the accused or not ? 12. The first contention of learned Advocate for the accused-appellant is that the receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. They are not capable of any reasonable explanation. Thus accused has been rightly convicted under sec. 380, I.P.C. 11. Now the question is as to whether an offence under section 471, I.P.C. is made out against the accused or not ? 12. The first contention of learned Advocate for the accused-appellant is that the receipts Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 were first of all produced by the accused appellant before the Collector, Nagaur as well as before the S.D.O. and, therefore, under section 195, Cr. P.C. the court could not have taken cognizance of an offence under section 471, I.P.C. otherwise than on the complaint in writing of the S.D.O. or S.D.M., Nagaur. In support of his submission, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on Gulabchand Rupji v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 467) and Nalini Kanta Laha and others v. Anukul Chandra Laha (A.I.R. 1918 Cal. 792). 13. In Gulabchands case (supra), it has been observed that where a party to a proceeding hands up a document to the Judge who does not take the document on the file but returns it to the party, the document is, "produced" in the proceeding, within the meaning of Section 195 (c). No complaint with reference to the document can be entertained by a criminal court, in the absence of the complaint in writing by the court concerned. 14. In Nalini Kanta's case (supra), it was held that if in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. an alleged forged document which had been registered before, a Sub-Registrar, was called for by the Magistrate in the said proceedings on the application of the accused and is made use of by their pleader then the document was "produced" within the meaning of S. 195(1)(c) and the accused could not, therefore, be prosecuted in respect of its antecedent forgery and antecedent user, before the Registrar without the sanction of the Magistrate. 15. It appears from the perusal of Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11 that in connection with the inquiry with regard to forgery of the documents Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 they were shown to the Collector and to the S.D.O. Nagaur. But the Collector did not take action against him. The first information report was lodged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Under Section 94, Cr.P.C. on the request of the investigating officer the Magistrate ordered the accused to produce the original receipts Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. But the Collector did not take action against him. The first information report was lodged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Under Section 94, Cr.P.C. on the request of the investigating officer the Magistrate ordered the accused to produce the original receipts Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. The accused-appellant produced the original receipts before the police officer. To my mind, only if the document which is said to be forged document, was produced in the court during the proceedings then only the provisions of Section 195(1)(b). Cr.P.C. are attracted. In the circumstances of the case, the documents were produced during the investigation of the case, by the accused on warrant of production of the documents issued by the Magistrate. After investigation, police filed a challan against the accused-appellant. To my mind, therefore, the argument of the learned Advocate, that the court could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 471, by virtue of sec. 195(1)(c) has no force.Now, the question is as to whether the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted under sec. 471, I.P.C. for having fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2, the two receipts. But it is first to be seen whether the two receipts are forged documents, Under Section 463, I.P.C. whoever makes a false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury to public or to any person or to support any claim or title to the property commits forgery. As a result of the discussion while dealing with section 380, I.P.C. it can be said that Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 which bears the seals and signature of PW 5 Makhanlal, were lying on the table of PW 1 Dhannalal and that he found the two blank sheets missing and brought this fact to the notice of the Tehsildar Makhanlal PW 5 on 28.8.70. 16. The evidence of forgery could be direct as well as circumstantial. In certain cases, the document itself can furnish intrinsic evidence of forgery. In the instant case, while dealing with the offence under section 380, I.P.C. I have already said earlier that the offence is committed by the accused and that the blank sheets of paper bearing the signature of the Tehsildar (Land Records) were stolen away. It has also been said earlier that these blank papers were meant for preparation of G. 87A forms to be attached to the salary bills as the pointed forms were not available. It has also been said earlier that these blank papers were meant for preparation of G. 87A forms to be attached to the salary bills as the pointed forms were not available. Having held that the accused committed theft of two blank sheets bearing the signature of the Tehsildar, the only question, now is as to whether any amount was paid by the accused to Makhanlal PW 5 and he gave the receipts to the accused. The demand notices Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 were served upon the accused-appellant on August 25, 1970. The accused-appellant appeared in the office of the Tehsildar on 26.8.70 not to pay the amount, but to produce an application Ex.P/28 relating to some other affair. Makhanlal PW 5 has clearly stated that he was not paid the amounts and the receipts Ex.P/1 and Ex./2 were not given to the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Makhanlal PW 5. 17. Besides this, PW 2 Peeraram, and PW 7 Kishanlal state that they accompanied the Tehsildar on tour and stayed at village Loonsar. They have stated that the accused did not pay the amount to Makhanlal Tehsildar in their presence. Besides the direct testimony of non-payment by the accused to the Tahsildar, there are other circumstances on the record which also establish that the amount demanded under Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 was not paid by the accused to the Tahsildar and the Tehsildar did not receipts Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 to the accused. The circumstances are as follows: 1. Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 have been written on the two blank sheets of paper which were given by PW 5 Makhanlalji to PW 1 Dhannalal. Those sheets were stolen away by the accused. 2. Dhannlal did not give two sheets of paper bearing the signature of the Tehsildar to the accused. 3. The accused was present at the time when Makhanlal PW 5 had signed on the blank sheets of paper including two missing sheets and there was a motive to forge the receipts because the accused and his father were substantially indebted to the Govt. On 25.8.70, the demand notices Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 had been received and the accused if he wanted to pay the amount, he would have gone with the amount to the Tehsil to make payment. 4. On 25.8.70, the demand notices Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 had been received and the accused if he wanted to pay the amount, he would have gone with the amount to the Tehsil to make payment. 4. Though the procedure was that kachha receipts used to be given, but they were always scribed by the concerned patwari and the Tehsildar only used to attest them. In this case, Ex.P/1, and Ex.P/2 were not scribed by the Patwari PW 10 Sangaram who was the Patwari, Loonsara at the relevant time. 5. The recovery was to be effected by the Tehsildar in the capacity of Tahsildar, Tehsil Jayal and not Tehsildar (Land record). If the amount would have been received against the Government dues, the receipts should have had the seals of the Tehsildar, Jayal and not Tehsildar (Land Records). 6. Jethu Singh father of the accused gave an application, copy of which is Ex P/18 on 6.10.70. It is not mentioned in it that the payment has been made. It does not appeal to reason that if the son would have made payment on August 26, 1970 of the dues of the father, the father would not have known it. 18. Besides all these circumstances, a bare glance, at the receipts Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 will show that they are not genuine receipts and are forged one. I have already said that the document itself furnishes intrinsic evidence of forgery. A look at Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/20 and Ex P/23 will show that Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 are almost ⅔ part of the missing sheets of the paper. It appears from Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/23, which are said to be other two sheets on which office copies forms G87A to be attached with salary bills were drawn, the other two accompanied the salary bills just below the seals are the initials of Dhannalal Kanugo PW 1. The original paper sheets Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 have been so torn just near the seals, that part of paper containing the initials of Dhannalal PW 1 is missing. It clearly appears that seals of the papers Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 has been torn just below the seals. The original paper sheets Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 have been so torn just near the seals, that part of paper containing the initials of Dhannalal PW 1 is missing. It clearly appears that seals of the papers Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 has been torn just below the seals. That apart, it will also appear that the space between different lines in Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 is not the same and more space was left in between the few lines so as to see that the writing reaches near the seals and the signatures. Still there is more space in between the signature and the writing. Thus the manner of writing of Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 also goes to show that it was intentionally written in this manner and the receipts are forged one. 19. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the accused clearly knew that receipt Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 are forged documents and it can also be said that he had reason to believe that the documents are forged and the accused used these documents fraudulently as genuine to escape the liability to pay amounts due against him and his father, to the State Government. The accused therefore committed an offence under section 471 I.P.C. Looking to the amount involved the planned manner in which the offence was committed by the accused and the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is not excessive and the case does not appear to me to be one, to be dealt with either under sec. 360. Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of the probation of offenders Act, 1958. 20. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The accused is on bail and he should surrender to his bail-bonds before the trial court immediately. If the accused does not surrender to his bail-bonds the trial court is directed to take necessary steps to get the accused arrested and see that he undergoes the sentence awarded or any remaining part there of.Appeal Dismissed. *******