JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision by the accused is directed against the conviction under Section 467, 468, 419, and 420 IPC and sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 467 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment under section 468 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 419 IPC and 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 420 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20th Jan, 1969, Accountant Badri Lal Verma informed PW 21 Bhoo Krishna Mehrishi, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota, that he had received a torn deduction form of insurance from Treasury through a peon and in its place the Treasury Wanted its certified true copy. On inquiry it came to the notice of the Accountant that it made a mention of bill No. 544 dated 11th November, 1980, but the names of persons which were mentioned in the insurance form were neither the employees of the department nor such bill of the aforesaid number and date was ever sent to the treasury from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota. It created a doubt in the mind of the Accountant and he submitted the bill before Shri Mahrishi PW 21 and he also found that his signatures on the bill were forged. On 20th January, 1969, no action could be taken as there was a meeting of the General Body of the Land Development Bank On 21st January, 1969 contact could not be made with the Treasury Officer as he had gone out of station. There after Shri Mehrishi made a contact with treasury accountant, Shri Raghunandan Dhadich and Shri Mangi Lal and came to know that Rs. 40,849/- amount of the bill had already been withdrawn on 9th January, 1969. Shri Mohrishi then met the Collector of the District and told him to wait for the treasury officer. On 22nd January, 1969, the Treasury Officer came back to Kota and Shri Mehrishi contracted the treasury officer, who made an inquiry from the Bank and found that the amount of the bill had been received by a person putting his signatures as Mohan Pdo. On 22nd January, 1969, the Treasury Officer came back to Kota and Shri Mehrishi contracted the treasury officer, who made an inquiry from the Bank and found that the amount of the bill had been received by a person putting his signatures as Mohan Pdo. Thereafter Vasudeo PW 1, Badri Lal and Rajpal PW 12 told Shri Mehrishi that Shri Mohan Prasad Srivastava accused had remained accounts clerk in the office till 1962 and the writing in the bill was very much identical to his writing in the old record and he was also a defaulting member of the District Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. and he had paid Rs. 589/- towards the principal debt on 20th January, 1969. The comparison of the hand-writing of the applications submitted by the accused while depositing Rs 589/- and the writing of the reply to the memo of objections was identical and as such it was believed this act was committed by the accused Shri Mohan Prasad Srivastava, who was familiar with the employees of the Department and its working and who had been earlier dismissed for preparing forged bills. Shri Mahrishi then lodged a written report Ex.P/4 on 22nd January, 1969 at Police Station Makbara on the basis of which Ex.P/15 formal FIR was registered. The accused was then arrested. During investigation following recoveries were made at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act. - (i) Rs. 14,900/- from Bhagwati Prasad; (ii) Rs. 230/- from Ramzani; (iii) Rs. 100/- from Hamidullah; (v) Rs. 1,360/- from Gokul Chand; (vi) Rs. 190/- from Kanhaiya Lal; (vii) Rs. 200/- from Mohammed Intizar @ Manju; (viii) Rs. 400/- from Mangi Lal @ Mangu Teli; and (ix) Rs. 300/- from Rajendra Prasad Srivastava. 3. The information for recovery is Ex.P 16. The application submitted by the accused in the office were recovered vide Ex.P. 18 and marked as Ex.P. 72-73. The original bill was seized and marked Ex.P/1 and on its basis Shri Madan Lal Pareek PW 22 got bill Ex.P 19 filled by the accused. The certificates of final payment of the bills by the accused were seized vide Ex.P/21 to P/28.Ex.P/1, Ex.P/19, P/20, the certified true signatures of Shri Bhoo Krishna Mahrishi and Exs. The original bill was seized and marked Ex.P/1 and on its basis Shri Madan Lal Pareek PW 22 got bill Ex.P 19 filled by the accused. The certificates of final payment of the bills by the accused were seized vide Ex.P/21 to P/28.Ex.P/1, Ex.P/19, P/20, the certified true signatures of Shri Bhoo Krishna Mahrishi and Exs. P 21 to P 28 and the cash books Articles 11 and 12 of the period when the accused was working in the office of the Assistant Registrar were sent to Shri C.T. Sarwat, Handwriting Expert, Indore, PW 17. The handwriting expert on comparison found that the accused had prepared forged bill Ex P 1 and Ex.P 59, the insurance deduction form which was a part of Ex.P 1 and got the same passed from the treasury and had withdrawn the amount from the Bank. The bills after completion of the inquiry filed a challan in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, under sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 IPC. The accused was read over the charges on 25th July, 1974-and he denied the charges. The prosecution in support of its case examined 23 witnesses and the accused denied the entire prosecution case in his explanation. The accused also appeared as a witness in his defence and did not lead any other evidence in support of his defence. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of all the charges and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above and the learned Sessions Judge on appeal also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision by the accused. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined the evidence on 5 counts to connect the accused. 1. Such evidence who identified the writing of the accused. 2. Evidence of the handwriting expert; 3. Comparison of the hand-writing of the accused with handwriting in the bill by the court itself; 4. Recoveries of Rs. 18,730/- at the instance of the accused under Section 27 Evidence Act; and 5. No satisfactory explanation given by the accused about the recoveries and his dismissal from service on account of purporting forged bill. 5. As regards the first point two witnesses Vasudeo PW. 1 and Rajput Singh PW. 12 have been examined by the prosecution. Rajpal did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. No satisfactory explanation given by the accused about the recoveries and his dismissal from service on account of purporting forged bill. 5. As regards the first point two witnesses Vasudeo PW. 1 and Rajput Singh PW. 12 have been examined by the prosecution. Rajpal did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. On cross-examination by the prosecution he stated that he did not give the statement portions A to B and C to D in Ex. P. 13 to the police. However, PW 13 Ram Saran, Station House Officer, Police Station, Makbara stated that he had recorded the statement of Rajpal and portions A to B and C to D in Ex. P. 13 were the same as stated by Rajpal. Bhookrishna Mahrishi PW. 21 has also stated that Rajpal had told him that the writing of Ex. PI and the other writing of the accused available in the office were similar. PW. 1 Vasu Deo in this regard has clearly stated that the accused had remained an accounts clerk in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kota from 1960 to 1962. He had seen the accused writing and he could identify his signatures. He further stated that the writing of Ex. PI appeared to be in the handwriting of the accused. A very sketchy cross-examination was done of Vasudeo. In the cross-examination he stated that he knew the accused from 1960. The accused had worked with him as Accounts Clerk from 1960 to 1962 He did not know the peon of the treasury earlier. No other cross-examination was done of Vasu Deo on the point that the accused was employed in the office of the Special Auditor Department and as such there could not have been any occasion for Vasu Deo to have seen the handwriting of the accused. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused strenuously contended that Badri Lal who is alleged to have identified the signatures of the accused has not been examined. Rajpal has been declared hostile and there is no evidence other than Vasudeo to show that the accused worked with Vasudeo. The accused in his statement has clearly stated that he did not work with Vasudeo and it was not normally possible after a lapse of 13 years by Vasudeo that he identified hand-writing of the accused, who is alleged to have worked with him from I960 to 1962. The accused in his statement has clearly stated that he did not work with Vasudeo and it was not normally possible after a lapse of 13 years by Vasudeo that he identified hand-writing of the accused, who is alleged to have worked with him from I960 to 1962. I see no force in the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused. Both the courts below have placed reliance on the statement of Vasudeo and it is not permissible for this Court to make a re-assessment of the evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I also went through the statement of Vasudeo and there is nothing in his cross-examination to suggest that the accused did not work with him from 1960 to 1962 and worked under the Special Auditor Department as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused now. There is nothing in the cross-examination to show that Vasudeo was in any manner inimical or had an axe to grind against the accused. His statement that he had seen the accused reading and writing and he identified his hand-writing and Ex. PI appeared to be in the hand of the accused, is not at all shaken in the cross-examination. It was not necessary to examine all the witnesses for identifying the handwriting of the accused and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution merely because Badri Lal, one of the witnesses of identification of handwriting has not been examined. It cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge on point No. 1 by placing reliance on PW 1 Vasudeo can be said to be perverse or contrary to law. 6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the accused that though the FIR was recorded on 22nd January, 1969 and the accused was arrested on 25th Jan., 1969 but still no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why his handwriting on Ex. P 19 for comparison was taken on 14th December, 1970 after a lapse of about 2 years. It was also contended in this regard that Ex. P19 was not taken before any Magistrate and is alleged to have been taken before Shri Madan Lal Pareek, Additional Superintendent of Police (City) Kota, PW. 22, and this creates a great suspicion on the authenticity of Ex. P 19. It was also contended in this regard that Ex. P19 was not taken before any Magistrate and is alleged to have been taken before Shri Madan Lal Pareek, Additional Superintendent of Police (City) Kota, PW. 22, and this creates a great suspicion on the authenticity of Ex. P 19. Shri Madan Lal Pareek PW. 21 was not the investigating officer and the investigating officer, who had brought the accused before Shri Madan Lal PW 22 has not been examined. There is no certainty that it was the accused, who was produced by the Investigating Officer before PW 22. The defence has been seriously prejudiced for being deprived of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer alone could have said that Ex. P 19 remained sealed and was not tampered, till it was sent to the handwriting expert. Reliance in this regard is placed on The State v. Banwari, 1959 RLW 196 , Though PW 16 Sohan Lal and PW 20 Vinod Chaturvedi Investigating Officers have been examined by the prosecution but they are not the investigating officers, who had taken the accused to PW 22 Madan Lal Pareek for getting Ex. P 19 written by the accused. It is also contended that though the chargesheet was filed by the police on 30th January, 1971 in which it was mentioned that the documents have been sent to the handwriting expert for comparison and its result would be submitted after the receipt of the same, but the report Ex. P58 submitted by PW 17 Shri Sarwate shows that he had received the documents for comparison with reference to letter No. KTH/CR/IND Exam/11/71 dated 1st February, 1971. It is thus contented that though the documents were sent for examination of the handwriting expert by letter dated 1st February, 1971, but in the chargesheet it was wrongly mentioned that the same have been sent on 30th Jaunary, 1971. 7. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Madan Lal Pareek, has been examined as PW 22. He has clearly stated that the accused Mohan Prasad present in court had written bill in his presence for verification and the same was attested by the witness, which was Ex.P 19. He has further deposed that this document Ex.P19 contained his signatures at `C to D'. He has clearly stated that the accused Mohan Prasad present in court had written bill in his presence for verification and the same was attested by the witness, which was Ex.P 19. He has further deposed that this document Ex.P19 contained his signatures at `C to D'. The handwriting of the accused on this document was from D to D on the same date, and the accused had written another bill which was Ex.P4. This contained the endorsement of the witness from E to F & bore the signature at C to H. On this document the writing of the accused was D2 to D2. In the cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any investigation in the case and there was no order from any court to take the writing of the accused. Apart from the aforesaid writing the accused neither made any writing earlier or subsequent to the aforesaid writing. No signatures of the accused were taken on the certificate as only copy of the bill was got prepared. After getting the same it was given to Investigation Officer in the open condition. The accused was produced before him by the Investigating Officer. He did not remember whether the accused was produced in the office or in the police station. It was denied that the accused might not have filled Ex P4 and Ex.P19 before him. From a perusal of the above statement it is clear that the accused who was identified to be present in the court, was produced before PW 22 and Ex P19 and Ex.P4 were taken in the handwriting of the accused There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that some body also might have been produced by the Investigating Officer in place of the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 22, a police officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the accused was unable to show any law that for comparison of a disputed document, the writing of the accused cannot be taken in the presence of a police officer during investigation, and it was incumbent under any law to take such writing only before a Magistrate for the purpose of investigation in the case. Learned counsel for the accused was unable to show any law that for comparison of a disputed document, the writing of the accused cannot be taken in the presence of a police officer during investigation, and it was incumbent under any law to take such writing only before a Magistrate for the purpose of investigation in the case. The delay in taking the writing for comparison on 14th December, 1970, though the accused was arrested on 25th January, 1969 has no material effect in the case as investigation was going on in the case and the evidence of other witnesses who were conversant with the handwriting of the accused was being collected by the prosecution. If a genuineness of Ex.P 19 is held proved, the delay in taking the same is of no consequence. There is also no reason to have any suspicion in sending Ex P19 and other documents to the handwriting expert by letter dated 1st Feb., 1971, merely because two days earlier i.e. on 30th January 1971 it was mentioned in the chargesheet that the documents have been sent for comparison to the handwriting expert. The chargasheet was filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Makbana, Kota, and it might have taken two days in sending the documents for the opinion of the expert from the office of the Superintendent of Police by a forwarding letter dated 1st February, 1971. PW 17 Shri Sarwata has appeared in the witness-box and has stated that after thorough examination and comparison he had reached the following conclusion: "The disputed body writing of pay bill Ex.Pl in English as well as in Hindi had been written by Mohan Lal, whose writing if filed in document `D' and the cashbooks `B' and `S'. The endorsement `E' in English on Ex.Pl and signatures Mohan Lal in Hindi by the writer and the specimen and standard writing on documents marked `S' and `C' and `D'. The writing on the last pay certificate which marked as Ex P21 to P28 has also been written by Mohan Prasad who has written the writing marked `D' on Ex.P 19 and also the standard writing in the cashbooks Article 11 and 12. The writing on the last pay certificate which marked as Ex P21 to P28 has also been written by Mohan Prasad who has written the writing marked `D' on Ex.P 19 and also the standard writing in the cashbooks Article 11 and 12. The reasons for his conclusion are mentioned in my report in sufficient detail, the report is marked as Ex.P58, which bears my signatures, are marked A to B." A lengthy cross-examination was done of this witness, but the learned counsel for the accused was unable to point any infirmity in his statement. Both the lower Courts have placed reliance on the statement of the hand writing expert and I see no reason to take a different view. The learned Sessions Judge has himself observed that there was a slight difference in the signatures of Ex PI, but on comparison of signatures A to B on Ex P19 when done with admitted signatures of the accused on record at several places, he found that the signatures of the accused were almost identical with the signatures on Ex.Pl & Ex P19. The learned Sessions Judge in this regard has also found that the signatures of the accused put on his statement and the signatures on Ex.Pl were quite identical. Though a court is not an expert, but it can certainly compare the writing on the disputed document from the admitted writing in order to assess the value of the other oral and documentary evidence in this regard. The comparison by a court has been allowed under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Thus, there is no error in the conclusion drawn by the courts below an points No.2 and 3 mentioned above. 8. As regards the recovery of the amounts from various persons at the instance of the accused on the information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no doubt that Rs. 18,730/- have been recovered from the various persons. In this regard the prosecution has examined PW 2 Mangi Lal, PW 3 Kanhaiya Lal, PW 4 Mohammed Sher @ Bundu, PW 5 Gokul Chand, PW 7 Hafizullah, PW 8 Ramzan, PW 9 Iftikhar Ahmed, PW 10 Mahammed Intizar, PW 11 Rajendra Prasad and PW 15 Bhagwati Prasad.Out of these persons PW 15 Bhagwati Prasad has been declared hostile. PW 11 Rajendra Prasad has stated that he had taken an amount of Rs. PW 11 Rajendra Prasad has stated that he had taken an amount of Rs. 300/- from Mohammed Intizar, thus his statement does not connect the accused in any manner. Mohammed Intizar PW 10 did not state a single word in the examination-in-chief that he had received Rs. 200/- from the accused. He only stated that he had given Rs. 200/- to the police for which Ex P9 was reduced into writing and which contained his signature In cross-examination also he casually stated that he used to receive money from the accused. Before giving the amount to the police he had given Rs. 300/- to the brother of the accused in the account of the accused. From the above statement also it cannot be said that the amount of Rs 200/- recovered from this witness had any connection with the amount of Rs. 40,849/- received by the accused by submitting forged bills. Iftikhar Ahmed PW. 9 has stated that he had given Rs. 350/- to the police 5 or 7 years ago. 1-11/4 month prior to this he had taken this amount from the accused In the cross-examination he stated that he had been taking other amounts also from the accused. The police had recovered the amount of Rs. 350/- from this witness on 31st January, 1969 and a period of 1-11/4 month prior to this comes somewhere in the month of December, 1968. The alleged amount had been received by the accused on 9th January, 1969 and as such also it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 350/- was a part of the amount received by the accused on 9th Jan , 1969. Ramzani PW 8 has not given any period when the amount recovered from him was given by the accused He has only stated that he had taken Rs. 300/- from accused Mohan out of which he had given Rs. 230/- to the police. The statement of this witness also is not helpful to the prosecution. Similarly PW 7 Hafizulla has also not stated any period when the amount of Rs. 100/-recovered by the notice, was given to him by the accused. PW. 5 Gokal Chand has stated that he had given Rs. 1,360/- to the police in 1969. He had taken Rs. l,360/- from Mohan Prasad, one month prior to this. Similarly PW 7 Hafizulla has also not stated any period when the amount of Rs. 100/-recovered by the notice, was given to him by the accused. PW. 5 Gokal Chand has stated that he had given Rs. 1,360/- to the police in 1969. He had taken Rs. l,360/- from Mohan Prasad, one month prior to this. In the cross-examination he stated that he had dealing with the accused from the year 1968. Thus, from his statement also it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 1,360/- was part of the amount of Rs. 40,849/- received by the accused on 9th January, 1969. The statement of Mohammed Saikh @ Bundu PW. 4 is also not helpful to the prosecution as the period when the amount given to him by the accused has been stated to be two or three months prior to its recovery by the police. The recovery was made on 30th January, 1969 and as such it cannot be a part of the amount received by forging a bill on an earlier occasion but was acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota, by judgment dated 27th September, 1971 (Ex. D1). After such acquittal it was clearly wrong on the part of the learned Sessions Judge in this case to treat this circumstance against the accused. I see no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused and in my view when the accused was acquitted for the earlier charge, that circumstance could not have been taken into consideration against the accused for proving charge in the present case. 9. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused based on the evidence of PW. 1 Vasudeo who identified the writing of the accused, evidence of the handwriting expert and the comparison by the court does not suffer from any infirmity and the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge on the aforesaid points does not call for any interference. It cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse or contrary to law and no interference as such can be made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. The charges of having forged a bill and having received an amount of Rs. It cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse or contrary to law and no interference as such can be made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. The charges of having forged a bill and having received an amount of Rs. 40,849/- on 9th January, 1969, are very serious offences for which the accused deserves no leniency in the matter of sentence. 11. The revision thus has no force and is accordingly dismissed,Revision Dismissed. *******