JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this criminal revision the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore, affirming his conviction and sentence for offences Under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C' for short). 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, a refuges from Bangladesh, having been rehabilitated in Malkangiri area of Koraput district, was engaged as a petty contractor under Dandakaranya Development Authority ('D. D. A.' for short) to execute minor works. For the purpose of financial transactions and encashment of cheques and bills, he had opened a current account with the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India on 8-4-1975. On 13-8-1975 he received an account payee cheque (Ext. 2) for a sum of Rs. 1,257.90 for work previously executed. He committed forgery of the cheque (Ext.2) and by tampering with the figures and words contained in it, converted the cheque to be one for Rs. 20,257.90. On the following day (14-8-1975), he presented the cheque at the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India for encashment. The cheque was encashed and the sum of Rs. 20,257.90 was deposited in his current account. On the same day he encashed a cheque for the sum of Rs. 20,250.00 from his current account and withdrew the amount. Some time thereafter the debit scroll (Ext. 3) was sent to the D.D.A. Office from the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India from which, it came to light that instead of a sum of Rs. 1,257.90, which the cheque (Ext.2) represented, a sum of Rs. 20,257. 90 was encashed and drawn. Suspecting foul play, a letter dated 28-9-1975 (Ext.6) was written to the Investigating Officer who treated it as F. I. R. and commenced investigation and after closure thereof charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. 3. The defence of the petitioner was that he had no knowledge of English besides crudely putting his signature in that language. There- fore, for encashment of the cheque (Ext.2) he took the help of two Bank employees (P.Ws. 4 and 5) and handed over the cheque (Ext.2) to them. These persons in connivance with some other employees of the Bank and the D.D. A. Office forged the cheque by converting it into one for Rs. 20,257.90 and encashed . it, but he was handed over a sum of Rs. 1,250.00. 4 and 5) and handed over the cheque (Ext.2) to them. These persons in connivance with some other employees of the Bank and the D.D. A. Office forged the cheque by converting it into one for Rs. 20,257.90 and encashed . it, but he was handed over a sum of Rs. 1,250.00. Therefore, he was not a party to the forgery and fraud and had no occasion to detect the same. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malkangiri, who tried the petitioner, believed the prosecution case and convicted him lor offences Under Sections 420 and 468, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-on each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more en each count as already referred to above. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that there was long delay in lodging the first information report and the delay was not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution case should be viewed with grave suspicion. The occurrence in this case took place on 14-8-1975 by drawal of a sum of Rs. 20,257.90 from the Malkangiri Bank of the State Bank of India on the basis of a forged cheque (Ext 2). Ext. 6, the first information report was sent to the Officer- in-charge, Malkangiri Police Station (P. W. 16) on 28-9-1975 after receipt of a wireless message from the Assistant Financial Adviser of D. D. A., at Jagadalpur dated 27-9-1975 to the effect that the petitioned had drawn a sum of Rs. 20,257.90 by encashing the cheque (Ext 2) which was actually for the sum of Rs. 1,257.90. The D. D. A. is a huge Central Government organisation. After receipt of the defence debit scroll dated 14-8-1975 showing payment of Rs. 20,257.90 to the petitioner by encashment of the cheque (Ext 2), in usual course, time was taken to make verification for detection of the fraud and forgery. That apart, in cases like this, where the accounts branch of a huge Central Government organisation was involved, there should be no apprehension that documents were created for the purpose of Victimising the petitioner in a palpably false case. The question of delay of lodging the F. I. R- was also not raised before the learned Sessions Judge. That apart, in cases like this, where the accounts branch of a huge Central Government organisation was involved, there should be no apprehension that documents were created for the purpose of Victimising the petitioner in a palpably false case. The question of delay of lodging the F. I. R- was also not raised before the learned Sessions Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not at all convinced that delay in. lodging the F.I.R. in this case in any way affected the prosecution case so as to view it with grave suspicion. The contention of Mr. Mohanty is, therefore, not tenable. 6. Mr. Mohanty next contended that the report of the handwriting expert (Ext. 23) is inadmissible in evidence, because, the expert was not examined in Court as a witness. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, urged that the report of the handwriting expert is admissible in evidence and can be read as such. If the petitioner had insisted during trial for examination of the expert, he could have been summoned for examination. But the petitioner did not make any attempt in the trial Court for his examination. Therefore, the report of the handwriting expert (Ext. 23) has to be considered for what it is worth. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel it is necessary to consider the report of the handwriting expert, Ext 23. In paragraph 1, he opined that the person who wrote the special writings marked B-1 to B-12, also wrote the red enclosed disputed writing marked V/1. The specimen writings marked B-1 to B-12 were not brought into the record by marking them as exhibits. From order dated 15-4-1976 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, it appears that sample writings of the petitioner, as well as P. W 9, an employee of the D. D. A, who wrote the cheque (Ext. 2) were taken for examination by the handwriting expert. It is not clear from the records, if the specimen writings marked B-1 to B-12 were those of the petitioner or P. W. 9. In paragraph 6 of his report, the handwriting expert opined that for want of sufficient basis, it is not possible to say as to whether the person, who wrote the specimen and admitted signatures marked A-8 to A-13 and A-14 also wrote the red enclosed disputed signature marked X-14. In paragraph 6 of his report, the handwriting expert opined that for want of sufficient basis, it is not possible to say as to whether the person, who wrote the specimen and admitted signatures marked A-8 to A-13 and A-14 also wrote the red enclosed disputed signature marked X-14. Specimen and admitted signatures marked A-8 to A-13, A-14 and X-14 were not brought into evidence by marking them as exhibits. Had the handwriting expert been examined in this case as a prosecution witness, all these documents referred to above which were specially marked by him for the purpose of facility of examination could have been brought into record and marked as exhibits for consideration as evidence. It is, therefore, not possible to formulate a specific opinion either on the basis of prosecution evidence or on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert as to whether the cheque (Ext. 2) was interpolated and forged by the petitioner himself or by P. W. 9. The signatures of the petitioner appears on the records and a glance at them will convince any one that he is not well- conversant in English language and writes his signature in a crude form. Therefore, it is hot possible to believe that he himself committed forgery of the cheque (Ext. 2). So, naturally attention will be focussed on P. W. 9, who wrote the cheque (Ext.2) and could have committed the forgery in connivence with the petitioner. Unfortunately, however, the investigation was not directed to find out, whether P. W. 9 was the real culprit and forger and no material was placed in evidence to pin-point the guilt on him by making him a co-accused. There can only be a lurking suspicion, but on that basis a conclusion as to who actually had forged the cheque (Ext.2) cannot be drawn. 7. Nevertheless, a glance at the cheque (Ext.2) by the naked eyes will show that forgery was committed in respect of it and the sum of Rs. 1,257,90 was converted into the sum of Rs. 20.257.90. The handwriting expert in paragraphs 2 to 5 has opined that the cheque (Ext.2) was forged although he could not ascertain the authorship of the forger. Without examination of the handwriting expert as a witness during trial, such opinion is admissible in evidence u/s 45 of the Evidence Act. 1,257,90 was converted into the sum of Rs. 20.257.90. The handwriting expert in paragraphs 2 to 5 has opined that the cheque (Ext.2) was forged although he could not ascertain the authorship of the forger. Without examination of the handwriting expert as a witness during trial, such opinion is admissible in evidence u/s 45 of the Evidence Act. This view is supported by a decision reported in Shri Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, in which it was held as follows : "...The clinching evidence against the appellant was his thumb impression on the kunda of the cash box. It was conclusively proved to be his on the opinion of the expert. The report of the expert was used as evidence by the prosecution without examining him in Court. Neither the Court thought It fit nor the prosecution or the accused filed any application to summon and examine the expert as to the subject matter of his report. The Court was bound to summon the expert if the accused would have filed any such application for his examination. 1 hat not having been done the grievance of the appellant apropos the report of the expert being used without his examination in Court made in the High Court and repeated in this Court had no substance." It is needless to repeat that in this case the petitioner did not make any application to the Court for examination of the handwriting expert, it is thus, clear from the above principle that even without examining the handwriting expert, his report is admissible u/s 45 of the Evidence Act and can be read as such. On consideration of the report of the handwriting expert (Ext. 23) opinion is re-enforced that the cheque (Ext. 2) was forged so as to convert it into one for the sum of Rs. 20,257.90, although originally, the cheque was for the sum of Rs. 1,257.90. 8. Mr. Mohanty then urged that there was complicity of the State Bank of India employees (P Ws. 3 to 6), as well as P. W. 9, a D.D.A. employee for commission of the forgery of the cheque (Ext.2) to reap the benefit thereof by withdrawal of huge cash and at the same time make payment of the small amount represented by the cheque (Fxt.2) to the petitioner taking advantage of his ignorance and absence of knowledge in English. Therefore, there are enough materials for the Court entertaining doubt about the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. The facts admitted and proved in this case are that the cheque (Ext. 2) was presented in the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India, all the writings were made by the Bank employees, the sum of Rs. 20,257.90 was drawn and deposited in the current account of the petit/oner with the same Bank and thereafter the sum of Rs. 20,250 00 was drawn by the petitioner from his current account by cheque (Ext. 20). All these happened on 14-8-1975. Even after a decade, the cheque (Ext. 2) appears to have been interpolated and forged. The interpolation and forgery are clearly visible to the naked eyes. The cheque was written and issued by P. W. 9. Interpolation appears to have been made by the person, who originally wrote the cheque. This is, however, a suspicion for which, there is no conclusive proof as already referred to above. It is surprising that a cheque, which appears to the naked eyes to have been tampered with and forged, was quietly passed and payment of a huge amount was made. P. Ws. 3 to 6, all employees of the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India, handled the cheque (Ext. 2). I am rather astonished that none of them could see the interpolation and forgery, Usually by training and habit, Bank employees are very scrutinising. 1 fail to comprehend, how four Bank employees including the Branch Manager did not bestow their scrutinising eyes to this particular cheque (Ext. 2) so as to detect the interpolation and forgery, particularly, when a huge amount of Rs. 20,257.90 was sought to be withdrawn. These facts are suggestive of the complicity of the Bank employees (P. Ws. 3 to 6) although the investigation is completely silent on this aspect and no definite conclusion can be drawn. In any event, the utter negligence of P. Ws. 3 to 6 while handling the cheque (Ext. 2) cannot be denied. 9. Now after discussion, I have come to a stage that several persons are suspected of having committed the interpolation and forgery in the cheque (Ext. 2) including the petitioner. May be the petitioner was a party to the interpolation and forgery along with others so as to share the foot. 2) cannot be denied. 9. Now after discussion, I have come to a stage that several persons are suspected of having committed the interpolation and forgery in the cheque (Ext. 2) including the petitioner. May be the petitioner was a party to the interpolation and forgery along with others so as to share the foot. It could as well be that he was quite innocent and became a victim of circumstances, because, he had a cheque in his possession to be ancashed, had a current account and had to take the help of the Bank employees for subsequent thereof. When the Court finds itself in the realm of suspicion and the complicity of the petitioner may be either in the affirmative or in the negative, he is legally entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 10. For the reasons stated above, i am unable to agree with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and extend benefit of doubt to the petitioner. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges and be set at liberty. Fine if realised, shall be refunded. Bail bond is cancelled. Final Result : Allowed