V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/9/1983 passed by Mr. R. K. Gupta, the then XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned Judge affirmed the conviction of the applicant on a charge under section 471 of the I. P. C. and also confirmed the order placing the applicant on probation for a period of one year and to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1000/- and furnish two sureties in the like amount and keep good behaviour for a period of one year. This order was passed in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1983 and the judgment and order of the Magistrate were passed in Criminal Case No. 368 of 1978. ( 2 ) VERY brief point is involved. The allegations of Amar Nath Singh complainant were that some of his fields were acquired by the government for establishment of a factory in the name of Indian Telephone Industry. At the time of the taking over of the land, the Government had directed that persons whose land was being acquired would be given service in the factory. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that some body else of the name of Ram Pratap Singh who is the present revisionist, has been given service in his place on the basis of certain forged application and the affidavit purporting to have been issued by Amar Nath, Singh. The Amar Nath Singh gave a notice to the Indian Telephone Industry and the information was confirmed. It came to the notice of Amar Nath that application and affidavit were given by the accused Ram Pratap Singh to the effect that in place of Amarnath, the service may be given to Ram Pratap Singh who is related to him as his sisters son. ( 3 ) ACTUALLY speaking, it is contended. Ram Pratap Singh is not related to Amar Nath in any way and that Amar Nath had signed neither the application nor the affidavit and these documents were forged and on the basis of the same, service was obtained by Ram Pratap Singh. These original documents were summoned from the Indian Telephone industry (for short it will be mentioned as I. T. T.) and were placed on the record. These original documents were summoned from the Indian Telephone industry (for short it will be mentioned as I. T. T.) and were placed on the record. ( 4 ) THE accused-revisionist took the stand that he obtained service with the I. T. T. on the basis of his merit, as his name had been forwarded by the concerned Employment Exchange. Subsequently in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. he further said that he was helped by Amar Nath Singh also in getting service and now because Amar Nath Singh is not being paid by him for this help, this false case has been started. ( 5 ) THE basic ingredient of the offence under section-471 of the I. P. C. is the fact of the forgery of the document if the document on the bag is of which certain advantage had been obtained, is not a forged document, then no case under section 471 I. P. C. can be contemplated. In order to prove this forgery, the original document was the best evidence. This document is missing from the file. It was not available at the time when the two courts disposed of the case, although before the learned Magistrate the original document had come and were on the record. The learned Sessions Judge has unnecessarily drawn an inference that these documents are missing from the file at the instance of the revisionist. No such inference can be drawn. There is no evidence to that effect. During cross-examination of Amar Nath Singh, a clear cut question was put to him to the effect that these documents did bear his signatures. The accused-revisionist could not have shown any thing more than this. The burden of proof was upon the complainant to show that the signatures on these documents were not his signatures but had been forged out. For that his statement alone would not have been sufficient. No Expert-evidence was brought on the record and no attempt for the same was made. Under these circumstances, when the documents are missing it cannot be presumed that the documents were forged and the learned Sessions Judge has not come to a justifiable conclusion that since the documents are missing, hence the circumstances only point to the fact that they have been done away with by the revisionist. Under these circumstances, when the documents are missing it cannot be presumed that the documents were forged and the learned Sessions Judge has not come to a justifiable conclusion that since the documents are missing, hence the circumstances only point to the fact that they have been done away with by the revisionist. When reliance is to be placed upon a circumstance to come to a conclusion, then the circumstance must point to one conclusion only. This is not possible in this case. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, there was no justification for the conviction of the revisionist under section 471 I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE revision is allowed. The conviction of the revisionist under section 471 I. P. C. and his being placed on the probation in lieu of the sentence are set aside. .