JUDGMENT Loney J. - The State has impugned the acquittal of the respondents accused in this appeal. The respondents were facing a criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468,471,218 read with l20-B, Indian Penal Code. 2. It is necessary to state the facts of this case. Accused No.1 Harikisan was convicted by the Sessions Court at Amravati for the offence of committing murder and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of Harikisan was maintained throughout and it appears that Harikisan was in Central Jail at Nagpur since 23rd November 1965 serving sentence for the offence of murder. 3. On 14th July 1972, the Government of Maharashtra declared a scheme of amnesty on the occasion of 25th anniversary of the Independance of India, celebrated on 15th Aug. 1972. A Circular explaining the amnesty scheme was therefore issued by the Government of Maharashtra to the concerned departments. In continuation of the earlier circular dated 14th July 1972 the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Bombay on 2nd August 1972 issued a letter as regards the scheme of amnesty to the Inspector General of Prisons of Maharashtra. It is at Exh. 52. Under caused of that circular, the prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life (excluding the sentence of fine if any) who have undergone 6 years of actual imprisonment on or before the 15th August 1972 and who are suffering from T.B. or Leprosy were to be granted the amnesty by releasing them on 15th Aug. 1972 for the remaining period of their imprisonment. The aforesaid circular was addressed to all the Superintendents of Central Prisons and others. A copy of that circular was received in the Central Jail, Nagpur on 4th August 1972. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Nagpur started preparing a list of various convicts who could get the benefit of this amnesty scheme. The respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar Badjate was working in the Central Jail Nagpur as the Chief Medical. Officer. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur prepared a list of 17 prisoners who could avail of the benefit under the amnesty scheme and sent it to the Government on 9-8-1972. The name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan, a Prisoner having No. 43896 was not included in that list to avail the benefit of the amnesty scheme. Officer. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur prepared a list of 17 prisoners who could avail of the benefit under the amnesty scheme and sent it to the Government on 9-8-1972. The name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan, a Prisoner having No. 43896 was not included in that list to avail the benefit of the amnesty scheme. On 10th Aug., 1972, a supplementary list of 4 prisoners was prepared to receive the benefit under the aforesaid scheme by the respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar Badjate. In that list of 4 persons, he included the name of Harikisan. The respondent No. 2 Jainendrakumar Badjate, as the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison, Nagpur certified that he was suffering from T.B. and the list was sent to the Government of Maharashtra of 4 prisoners including the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan on 10th Aug. 1972 with a messenger. It was stated therein that Harikisan was suffering from T.B. The Supplementary list is at. Exh. 58. Both the lists were sent through the Superintendent, Central Prisons, Nagpur. Acting on the recommendation sent by the Superintendent, central Prison; Nagpur, the Govt. of Maharashtra addressed a letter dated 12th August 1972 directing the Superintendent, Central Prisons, Nagpur; to release the respondent No. 1 Harikisan alongwith other prisoners. This letter is at Exh. 59 In response to the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1. Harikishan was released on 15 August 1972 and a report to that effect was sent by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison on 26th August, 1972 which is at Exh. 61. The name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan finds place at Sr. No. 20 in that list. 5. The respondent No. 1. Harikisan thus received the benefit of the amnesty scheme on the basis. of the recommendation made by respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. It is the prosecution case that respondent No. 1 Harikisan Rathi was not suffering from T.B. but the respondent had entered into a criminal conspiracy to get the benefit of the amnesty scheme on the ground that Harikisan was suffering from T.B. Respondent No. 1 Harikisan was in Central Jail, Nagpur from 2-5-1970 till his release on 15th August, 1972 arid he was never referred to the T.B. Hospital for treatment as T.B. patient. It is further alleged that Harikisan was produced before the Medical Officer on 28th July 1971 at the instance of Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison and on examination by the Medical Officer it was certified that he was well built, Muscular Young man and his condition was found to be quite satisfactory. The said certificate is at Exh. 76 on record. Therefore, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur informed the Government vide letter dated on 9th August 1971 accordingly. A copy of that letter is proved at, Exh. 75. Therefore, respondent No. 1 Harikisan could not avail the benefit of the provision of Clause 'd' of the circular at Exh. 52. However, in order to take the benefit of the amnesty scheme, according to the prosecution, both the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to prepare the forged document to show that Harikisan was suffering from T.B. and then to use the forged document as genuine to obtain the release of Harikisan under the amnesty scheme. According to the prosecution, when the first list of 17 prisoners suffering from T.B. was sent to Government on 9th August. 1972, the name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan was not included that list but after preparing the forged document showing that. Harikisan was suffering from T.B. a supplementary list was prepared by the respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar and sent it to the Government on 10th Aug., 1972 with a messanger. On, the basis of this supplementary list, the necessary orders were issued to release respondent No. 1 Harikisan and he was released on 15th August, 1972. 6. The prosecution has also tried to show that respondent No. 1 Harikisan through his wife and other relations had made attempts to get himself released from the prison early. The prosecution has proved letter dated 11th August 1972 at Exh. 119 addressed to the Chief Minister of the Maharashtra State and also a letter dated 2nd September 1970 under the thumb impression of Rampyaribai, mother of Harikisan. The said letters also contain the signatures of various Legislatures from Amravati, Nagpur, Akola and Yavatmal districts. Similar letter was also addressed to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra by the wife of Harikisan Rathi in the month of August 1970 which is proved at Exh. 120. Another letter was addressed to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra by one Gopilal Gandhi in the month of August 1971, which is at Exh. Similar letter was also addressed to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra by the wife of Harikisan Rathi in the month of August 1970 which is proved at Exh. 120. Another letter was addressed to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra by one Gopilal Gandhi in the month of August 1971, which is at Exh. 121 followed by another letter under the signature of the wife of Harikisan dated 26th January 1972 which is at Exh. 122 similar request was also made on 11th April 1972 under the signature of various Legislatures of Maharashtra on the ground that the wife of Harikisan was suffering from T.B. That letter is proved at Exh. 123. According to the prosecution, in none of these letters, it is claimed that respondent No. 1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. It is important to note that the prosecution had given a notice to admit the aforesaid documents Exhs. 119 to 123 Notice is at Exh. 118. Both the respondents gave say on Exh. 118 admitting the aforesaid documents. Therefore, said documents were exhibited by the court without any formal proof. The object of the prosecution to file the aforesaid document was to demonstrate that there is no whisper in the said documents about the illness of respondent No. 1 Harikisan as a T.B. patient and, therefore according to the prosecution, the ,release of respondent No. 1 Harikisan under the amnesty scheme was on the basis of forged documents. Incidentally, it is to be mentioned that soon after the release of respondent No. I Harikisan under the amnesty scheme on 15th Aug., 1972 son of deceased Manohar Jagdish got suspicious that, Harikisan got released by fraud. Since Harikisan and Jagdish being the residents of the same locality of the village, he was watching the movements of Harikisan and his brother. Jagdish therefore, prepared an application dated 3-10-72 and addressed it to the then Law Minister of India. Copy of the application is exhibited during the trial at Exh. 98. Jagdish alleged that accused Harikisan has obtained a false certificate to get himself released under the amnesty scheme. He also claimed that Harikisan should be examined through some other expert doctor. Jagdish therefore, prepared an application dated 3-10-72 and addressed it to the then Law Minister of India. Copy of the application is exhibited during the trial at Exh. 98. Jagdish alleged that accused Harikisan has obtained a false certificate to get himself released under the amnesty scheme. He also claimed that Harikisan should be examined through some other expert doctor. He also suggested in the application that the matter should be enquired into through the C.B.I. Thereafter Jagdish prepared another application dated 11-10-1972 on similar lines and addressed it to the president of India and to the Home Minister of India. Copies of those applications are proved at Exhs, 97 and 99 during the trial. 8. In both the aforesaid applications, Jagdish was alleged that he has already made a complaint to the President of India stating that respondent No. 1 Harikisan got released under the amnesty scheme by some mis representation. According to Jagdish, Harikisan was not suffering from any disease \whatsoever. In his efforts, Jagdish addressed two applications to the Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra on 21st February 1973 and 7th February 1974 asking for an enquiry about his complaint, which he had sent to the President of India. In his applications Jagdish had stated that since the complaint was forwarded to the Government of Maharashtra for enquiry, he was anxious to know the outcome of the enquiry. Jagdish himself was examined as P.W. 7 during the trial. He proved all the aforesaid documents through his evidence It seems that the Government machinery swung into action and the enquiry was ultimately handed over to C.LD. Crime Branch, P.W. 14, P.S.I Chavan completed the enquiry and lodged the F.I.R. at Sitabuldi Police Station Nagpur on 11th December 1977. 9. It is the prosecution case that when the medical examination report supporting the claim of Harikisan that he was suffering from T.B. was not available, both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to prepare a false record to take the benefit of the amnesty scheme. According to the prosecution, one Rahamatullah, a prisoner, who was suffering from T.B. and was treated at the T.B. Hospital at Nagpur on 11-5-1971, was given Index No. 23026 by the T.B. Hospital, Nagpur, when it was confirmed that he was a T.B. Patient. There was a Sub-Centre Slip prepared for Rahamatullah with the Token Card No. 23026 by the then Dr. There was a Sub-Centre Slip prepared for Rahamatullah with the Token Card No. 23026 by the then Dr. Baban Tote on 25th Sep., 1971. Similarly another such Centre Slip in respect of the same prisoner Rahmnatullah dated 25-3-72 was also prepared at the T.B. Centre. According to the prosecution, once Index Number is given to a prisoner suffering from T B. then that number is not changed since he has to take a treatment in future. According to the prosecution such number given to a patient at the T.B. Centre remains permanent and unchanged. 10. All the aforesaid documents were in the hospital at Jail were respondent No. 2 Jainendrakumar was working at the material time. The prosecution alleged that respondent No. 2 Jainendrakumar was knowing fully that respondent No. 1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. and, therefore, respondent No. 2 Dr. Jaindendrakumar utilised the Index Number and Card of Rahamatul1ah and his tow sub-centre slips. All the three documents are exhibited at Exhs. 23, 24 and 25. According to the prosecution, respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar in furtherance of his criminal conspiracy with Harikisan utilised the documents of Rahamatul1ah as if they relate to respondent No. 1 Harikisan. On the basis of these documents, respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar included the name of Harikisan in the second list dated 10th August 1972 in order to give benefit to Harikisan under the amnesty scheme. The prosecution alleged that Dr. Jainendrakumar having fully aware that respondent No. 1 Harikisan is not suffering from TB. yet prepared a false record by committing forgery to suit the purpose of Harikisan to obtain the benefit under amnesty scheme and thus used those various documents as genuine. The prosecution further alleged that respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar included the name of Harikisan in the supplementary list dated 10th Aug. 1972 on the basis of which respondent No. 1 Harikisan was released under the amnesty scheme. Thus the prosecution alleged that the respondents committed the offence of forgery by preparing false documents and used them as genuine as a result of their criminal conspiracy. After the investigation, the C.I.D. Police of the Crime Branch filed a charge-sheet against the respondents in the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The learned C.J.M., Nagpur framed charge against both the accused under Sections 4fi5, 466, 468, 471, 218 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 11. After the investigation, the C.I.D. Police of the Crime Branch filed a charge-sheet against the respondents in the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The learned C.J.M., Nagpur framed charge against both the accused under Sections 4fi5, 466, 468, 471, 218 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 11. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses and also filed several document in support of the prosecution case. Both the accused abjured their guilt. Respondent No.1 Harikisan admitted in his statement that he was released under the amnesty scheme on 15th August 1972 on the ground that he was suffering from T.B. Harikisan further stated that in the month of March 1970 when he was released on parol he got examined himself through a private doctor and found that he was suffering from T.B. Respondent No. 2 Jainendra kumar admitted that Harikisan was released on the ground that he was suffering from T.B. under the amnesty scheme. He also admitted that he prepared a certificate of 21 persons including the respondent No.1 Harikisan to the Government for getting the benefit under the amnesty scheme. However, he has denied that Index No. 23026 was of prisoner Rahamatullah. According to him respondent No.1 Harikisan was sent for medical examination to the Medical College, Nagpur on 9-8-1972. However, he denied that he committed forgery in relation to the documents of medical examination pertaining to Rahamatullah bearing Exhs. 23, 24 and 25. According to respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendra kumar while he was working as a Chief Medical Officer in Central Jail, Nagpur the Superintendent of the Central Prison asked him to produce a list of T.B. patients in the month of August, 1972. A list was prepared by Dr. Pande which bears his signature. which was forwarded to the Government. He claims that he examined those 21 persons and had sent that list after putting his signature. Thus there is no further defence claimed by the respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendra kumar. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and acquitted both the respondents. The acquittal is impugned in this appeal by the State. 12. Shri A.M. Tayade, A.P.P. for State has submitted that the entire approach of the learned Magistrate was wrong and the findings reached by the learned Magistrate are perverse. Jainendra kumar. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and acquitted both the respondents. The acquittal is impugned in this appeal by the State. 12. Shri A.M. Tayade, A.P.P. for State has submitted that the entire approach of the learned Magistrate was wrong and the findings reached by the learned Magistrate are perverse. He contended that the substantive evidence of the prosecution witnesses was mostly on the basis of the documents and the record prepared in the normal course of working and yet the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the proved facts and the documentary evidence in this case. The learned A.P.P. therefore, urged that the judgment and the acquittal needs to be set aside and that on the basis of the prosecution evidence, oral as well as documentary this court should reach a finding of guilt of the respondents. According to Shri Tayade the points in para 9 of the Judgment framed by the learned Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself while deciding this case. Para 9 reads as under: "The points for determination can broadly be covered by two questions. Deos prosecution prove that the accused No. 1 was not suffering from T.B. and whether documents Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 are false documents prepared by the accused No.2 to show that the accused No.1 was suffering from T.B." In fact the prosecution case according to Shri Tayade was that despite the fact that respondent No.1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. the documents relating to Rahmatullah a T.B. patient were dishonestly and fraudulent forged and used as genuine to support the release of Harikisan under the amnesty scheme. Thus according to Shri Tayade the Trial Court made the wrong approach to the entire case. 13. With the assistance of Shri Tayade and Shri R.S. Padhye, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri L. Mohta for respondent No.2 we have gone through the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary and all other relevant papers. On going through the judgment we find that the learned Magistrate has completely misdirected himself in approaching the case of the prosecution. We further found that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is perverse for the following reasons. 14. The prosecution evidence has been classified in two sets of witnesses. P.W.1 Pundlik, P.W. 2 Uddhao, P.W. 4 Arvind, P.W. 6 Vikrant Pande, P.W. 12 Dr. We further found that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is perverse for the following reasons. 14. The prosecution evidence has been classified in two sets of witnesses. P.W.1 Pundlik, P.W. 2 Uddhao, P.W. 4 Arvind, P.W. 6 Vikrant Pande, P.W. 12 Dr. Deshpande and P.W. 13 Dr. Tharumal, Dy. Superintendent of Jail are the witnesses admittedly working in the Central Jail, Nagpur when respondent No.1 Harikisan was in Central Jail Nagpur. It is also not in dispute that at the material time Dr. Jainendra kumar was the chief Medical Officer at the Central Jail, Nagpur, Another set of witnesses comprising of P.W. 3 Mahendra, P.W. 5 Narayan, P.W, 8 Krushnakant, P.W. 10 Dr. Baban Tote, P.W. 11 Prabhakar were working in the T.B. Hospital at Nagpur P.W. 9 Jayant has been examined as hand writing expert. P.W. 14 P.S.I. Chawhan was also examined who conducted the investigation in, this crime. The fact that respondent No1 Harikisan was serving jail sentence at the Central Jail, Nagpur and the respondent No.2 Jainendra kumar was the Chief Medical Officer in the Central Jail. Nagpur at the material time is not in dispute, Similarly Dr. Jainendra kumar has admitted that he sent the names of 17 persons on 9th August 1972 and a supplementary list of 4 persons including the names of respondent No. 1 on 10th August 1972. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of that list prepared by the respondent No.2 Jainendra kumar respondent No.1 Harikisan was released on 15th August 1972 under the amnesty scheme. It is also admitted fact that on behalf of Harikisan several representations were sent to the Govt. which are at Exhs. 119 to 123. It is also not in dispute that Jagdish is the son of deceased Manohar and he had complained to the Government that respondent No. 1 Harikisan was never suffering from T.B, and that he got himself released under the amnesty scheme and therefore the enquiry should be made by the C.I.D. It is ~ also an admitted fact that P.W. 1 Pundlik was a prisoner in Central Jail, Nagpur during the period 1970 to 1975 and he being an educated prisoner was allotted the work of preparing entries in the register in the Jail Hospital, where respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendra kumar was working. 15. Jainendra kumar was working. 15. P.W. 1 Pundlik has stated that Harikisan was never an Indoor patient in the Jail Dispensary during his stay in the jail. He was working under respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendra kumar and was well acquainted with the working and hand writing of respondent No. 2. He identified the hand writing of respondent No.2 Jainendra kumar in Article B wherein the names of the patients who were sent to the Medical Hospital for examination through the jail authorities are written by respondent No.2. He further stated that there was a medical, file of prisoner Rahamatullah in the Jail Hospital. According to him, the Index Card bearing m No. 23026 at Exhibit 23 was of the patient from the T.B. Hospital. Such card used to be brought by the patients. He further stated that Exhibits 23, 24 and 25 bears Index No. 23026 in the blue ink and the dates 11-5-1971 and 13-5-1971 in blue ink are in his hand writing which were made by him on m the say of respondent No.2 Jainendra kumar. He further stated that Dr. Jainendra kumar handed over to him those documents from the file. He further stated that Dr. Jainendra kumar never disclosed to him as to why he was getting Exhs. 23, 24 25 filed under the handwriting of Pundlik. He further stated that the words 'Harikisan Rathi' appearing on Exh.25 have been written by some doctor. He further asserted that both the respondents used to meet in jail. He also i8dentified signature of respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendra Kumar on Exh. 34 which is a list of the prisoners sent to the Government for giving benefit under the amnesty cheme. He also identified the hand writing of respondent No. 2 Jainendra kumar on Ehs. 27, 28 29 and 30 to 41. In short, this witness has a long association with respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendra kumar in the jail and was acquainted with his hand writing. Thus this witness has given the most convicing evidence and there is no scope to disbelieve his testimony. We believe the evidence of this witness as he was working with respondent No.2 16. While disbelieving this witness P.W.1 Pundlik, the learned magistrate has give given reason that he was stating about the hand writing of accused No. 2 Jainendra Kumar but he could not recognize the hand writing of Dr. We believe the evidence of this witness as he was working with respondent No.2 16. While disbelieving this witness P.W.1 Pundlik, the learned magistrate has give given reason that he was stating about the hand writing of accused No. 2 Jainendra Kumar but he could not recognize the hand writing of Dr. Kankhar and Dr. Barapatre and, therefore, it is not safe to rely on his testimony. It is undisputed fact that this witness was working under respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar and was doing the writing work under his directions, Thus he had ample opportunity to know the hand writing of respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar than the hand writing of Dr. Kankhar and Dr. Barapatra. 17. Dr. Kankhar has been examined as P.W.4 he has stated that he was working as the Assistant medical Officer whereas Dr. Jainendra kumar was working as Chief Medical Officer. Similarly Dr. Barapatre was also the Assistant Medical Officer, who succeeded Dr. Deshpande, Assistant Medical Officer. According to him, it was his duty to examine the prisoners in ‘Chhota Goal and bada Goal’ area of the jail and to give medicines. According to him the complicated cases were referred to Dr. Jainendakumar. P.W.1 Pundlik was never working with him. Another witness Dr. barapatra has not been examined. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Magistrate to condeman this witness on the ground that he identified the hand writing of Dr. Jainendrakumar and do not recognize the hand writing of Dr. Kankhar and Dr. Barapatre is perverse in this regard. 18. Another instance of perversity which is found from the judgment of the learned magistrate is in para 11 of the judgment. P.W.5 Narayan joshi was working as a clerk in the T.B. Hospital, nagpur since 1964. In 1972-73 he wasa dealing with the T.B. patients. He was entrusted with the work of finding out the references of the T.B. patients. He has elaborated the process of working in the T.B. Hospital. He has stated that if the patient was suffering from T.B. then the treatment number was given a clinical card was to be prepared. On that card, the treatment number or clinical as Index Number was given. He further stated that once an Index Number was given it was never to be changed. He stated that Exh. 24 is a Sub-Centre slip issued by the T.B. Hospital bearing No. 23026. On that card, the treatment number or clinical as Index Number was given. He further stated that once an Index Number was given it was never to be changed. He stated that Exh. 24 is a Sub-Centre slip issued by the T.B. Hospital bearing No. 23026. According to him, the patient had come in the hospital on 25-9-1971 he was a prisoner and that the dsate is putin his handwriting. That document bears the signature of Dr. Tote. he further stated Index no. 23026 pertains to Rahamatullah son of Babu. He himself prepaed this card Exh. 24 and the patient was admitted in the T.B. Hospital on 25th September, 1971 and he expired on 29th August, 1972 in the T.B. Hospital, Exhibit : 24 is a sub-centre slip prepared by him. He identified the signature of Dr. Tembhurne as he was working under him. Dr. Tembhurne is no more as he is dead. There is no cross examination of this witness by respondent No. 1 Harikisan. This witness has been disbelieved and his evidence has been rejected by the leaned Magistrate on the ground that he stated that the Index No. 23026 was given on 15-12-1970. In fact this witness was never aware of the date when Index No. 23026 was given. Exh. 84 shows that Index No. 23026 was appearing even on 12-2-1968. A careful examination of Exh. 84 would show that Index No. 23026 on Exh. 84 was given long back and not on 15-10-1970. The learned Magistrate should not have condemned this witness. In fact he never stated in his examination-in-chief that Index No. 23026 was given on 15-10-1970. On the contrary this witness has stated that he had no occasion to see the O.P.D. Register in which the entry is made. A perusal of Exh. 23 shows that it is dated 11-5-1971. Thus, there is no basis for the inference of the learned Magistrate that this witness is telling lie. 19. In para 12 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate has made observations to disbelieve witness P.W. 5 Narayan on the basis of the entries appearing in Exh. 84. The learned Trial Magistrate further observed that Exh. 84 shows that it is a true copy. On the basis of that assumption the Trial Court proceeded further that the evidence of this witness is not acceptable. 84. The learned Trial Magistrate further observed that Exh. 84 shows that it is a true copy. On the basis of that assumption the Trial Court proceeded further that the evidence of this witness is not acceptable. He further observed that this witness cannot be supported on the basis of record which is otherwise. A perusal of Exh. 84 shows that it is not a true copy. We have carefully examined Exh. 84. Exh. 84 is a clinical card of Rahamatullah son of Babu resident of Tajbag, Nagpur. In this clinical card initial finding as to both lungs is stated. It seems from this document that this patient was under treatment since 1968. In column No. 16, it is stated that the patient was first examined on 12-2-1968. He was an old patient but he suffered relapse of T.B. on 9-6-1970. Thereafter he was examined on various dated which are mentioned in the card. Various dates from 18-12-69 onwards are mentioned therein. His X-ray examination shown to have been made on 6-6-70 and 18-12-70. In column 15 it is found that on various dates in the year 1970 this patient was supplied the drugs. Further on 25-9-1971 this patient was examined by P.W. 10 Dr. Tote. 20. P.W. 10 Dr. Tote has stated in his evidence that as a Medical Officer in T.B. Control and Training Centre, Nagpur he had an occasion to treat this patient on 25-9-71. He also stated that his Index No. is 23026 and his X-ray No. 8906. Thus this document Exh. 84 is an original document. P.W. 10 Dr. Tote has stated that the patient had expired due to aspecia on .29-8-1972 i.e after nearly about 11 months after he was examined by Dr. Tote. It is however, true that at the end of this document Exh. 84, someone has written the words 'true copy' and at the beginning it is written as 'Dup Card'. Simply because the words 'Dup Card' and 'True Copy' is written on it, it cannot be characterised as a duplicate card on a true copy. It is interesting to note that none has signed after the words 'Dup Card' and 'True Copy'. In view of the direct evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Tote document Exh. 84 which is proved to be a clinical card of Rahamatullah it cannot be said that it is a duplicate or true copy. It is interesting to note that none has signed after the words 'Dup Card' and 'True Copy'. In view of the direct evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Tote document Exh. 84 which is proved to be a clinical card of Rahamatullah it cannot be said that it is a duplicate or true copy. In any case the document cannot be said to be a true copy of 'Dup copy'. At the same time it clearly appears that somebody has interpoleted the aforesaid document by putting the aforesaid two words. The learned Magistrate has completely ignored this aspect of the document Exh. 84 and on the basis of that document took a perverse view to discard the evidence of P.W. 3 Joshi. 21. The learned Magistrate further disbelieved Exh. 84 being the original document on the ground that the original register is not seized and therefore the Index No. 23025 as shown cannot be said to be of Rahamatullah. As discussed above we have no doubt that Exh. 84 is the original document. In the register only the Index Numbers are entered. The details about the clinical card will not be in the register but on the clinical card as is clear from Exh. 84. It seems that the learned Magistrate was labouring under the wrong impression as regards the seizure of the register and in absence of that register doubted the genuiness of Exh. 84. On the face of direct evidence of P.W. 1 Pundlik and P.W. 10 Dr. Tote the genuineness of Index No. 23026 being given to Rahamatullah on Exh. 23 cannot be doubted. Similarly there is no scope for the doubt that Rahamatullah died on 29th August 1972. But this fact also has been doubted by the learned Magistrate. In fact nothing depends whether Rahamatullah died on 29-8-72 or on any other date, as the relevant question which survives for consideration is whether the documents Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 showing Index No. 23026 relates to respondent No.1 Harikisan Rathi showing him as suffering from T.B. When Index No. 23026 appearing on Exh. 25 has been proved beyond doubt to be of Rahamatullah these documents cannot be used as Medical examination report of respondent No. 1 Harikisan Consequently the documents cannot be said to be the genuine record relating to respondent No. 1 Harikisan to show that he was suffering from T.B. 22. 25 has been proved beyond doubt to be of Rahamatullah these documents cannot be used as Medical examination report of respondent No. 1 Harikisan Consequently the documents cannot be said to be the genuine record relating to respondent No. 1 Harikisan to show that he was suffering from T.B. 22. The learned Magistrate has further went on to discuss the document Exh. 107 dated t 8-10-1976 regarding the treatment of Harikisan as a T.B. patient. According to the learned Magistrate Exh. 107 negatives that respondent No. 1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. In fact Exh. 107 is dated 8-10-1976 i.e. after the release of respondent No.1 Harikisan. It neither helps the prosecution nor .; the defence in any way since the relevant period :, whether respondent No. I Harikisan was suffering from T.B. or not is the period of the month of July 1972. Whole process started after the circular, Exh. 52 was received by the Jail Authorities in order to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Barlinge. P.W. 8 the Trial Court has disbelieved that this witness has given a lethal blow to the prosecution because he admitted in his cross-examination that by clinical examination no doctor can diagnosis i the T.B. In any case it does not establish that in July and August 1972, respondent Harikisan was suffering from T.B. It is incorrect to conclude that this admission of Dr. Barlinge in any way gives lethal below to the prosecution. In the conclusion, the trial Judge has took a view that the evidence of the prosecution falls short of proving the preparation of false document or use of the forged documents as genuine. On going through the entire judgment we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Magistrate has taken a extreme perverse view by ignoring the positive direct and clinching evidence as regards the forgery of documents Exhs. 23. 24 and 25. 23. The amnesty scheme stated in Exh. 52 provides that the convicts who satisfy the requirements stated in the circular will be entitled to the benefit under the scheme. In Clause (d) it is provided that the prisoners who have undergone six years of actual imprisonment on or before 15th August 1972 and who are suffering from T.B. or Leprosy were to be given the benefit of amnesty scheme. In Clause (d) it is provided that the prisoners who have undergone six years of actual imprisonment on or before 15th August 1972 and who are suffering from T.B. or Leprosy were to be given the benefit of amnesty scheme. It clearly provides that before the prisoners were to be released they were to be medically examined to ascertain that they are suffering from T.B. Therefore the main requirement was that the Jail Authorities were to ensure through medical examination the entitlement of a prisoner before the release on 15th August 1972, In Exh. 52 at page in Clause 4 the Government had requested the Director of Health Services, Bombay to constitute special Medical Boards to examine the prisoners falling under the category; It is also found that the medical examination reports of these prisoners were to be sent to the Government directly by the Medical Board by 10th August 1972 under intimation to the Inspector General of Prisoners. This provisions was obviously made with an object to extend the benefit of the amnesty scheme to the genuine cases who were positively found to be suffering from the diseases mentioned in the circular Exh. 32. 24. In the instant case, we find that the respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar had prepared a list of 24 prisoners in his own hand writing which is at Exh. 53. and he has signed it. Respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar has admitted in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the correctness of the document. But is a nowhere found that any Medical Board was constituted on the basis of the direction contained in circular Exh. 52 nor there is any mention that Dr. Jainendrakumar signed it as a Member of that Board. It is nowhere found that he was appointed as a Member of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose stated at Exh. 52. However this list Exh. 53 does not find the name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan. Exh. 53 is not a typed list but a list in the hand writing of respondent No. 2 Dr. Jainendrakumar. A typed list showing the prisoners entitled in different category was prepared by the Superintendent. Nagpur Central prison on 9th August 1972 vide Exh. 55. In category (d) there are names of 17 persons and there is no name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan. It is stated in Exh. Jainendrakumar. A typed list showing the prisoners entitled in different category was prepared by the Superintendent. Nagpur Central prison on 9th August 1972 vide Exh. 55. In category (d) there are names of 17 persons and there is no name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan. It is stated in Exh. 55 that the prisoners are sent before the Medical Board on that date set up by the Deputy director or Health Serivces Nagpur. But there is no such mention in the supplementary list Exh. 58 which shows the name of Harikisan. 25. It is surprising to note that in Exh. 58 a supplementary list of 4 persons suffering from T.B. was prepared in which the name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan was mentioned no reason is given why supplementary list was required to be made when the list of prisoners suffering from T.B. was prepared and sent to Government on 9th August 1971. There is no mention in Exh. 58 that the prisoners mentioned therein were sent before the Medical Board for examination and that they were examined by the Civil Surgeon. Exh. 58 is the original letter in that behalf. It is dated 10th August, 1972 addressed to the Govt. by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison. There is no mention in that letter that those 4 prisoners were sent for medical examination or that they were examined by any doctor. However acting on that supplementary list the respondent No. 1 Harikisan got the benefit and was released under the amnesty scheme. In our view, preparation of supplementary list itself is without any rhyme or reason, proves nexus for the crime. 26. We have gone through the entire record and found that there is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that respondent No.1 Harikisan was found suffering from T.B. on the date when the supplementary list Exh. 58 was sent to the Government. There is no whisper in the said document or before the recommendations were made by the Superintendent, Central Prison that respondent No.1 Harikisan was examined by the Medical Board or by any Doctor and that he was found suffering from T.B. Except the statement of respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that in fact respondent No.1 Harikisan was a T.B. patient while in jail. On the contrary, the prosecution has led convincing and dependable evidence to negative the fact that respondent No.1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. 27. The prosecution has led the evidence to negative the claim of respondent No.1 Harikisan that he was a T.B. patient. The prosecution has also produced number of documents in that behalf. First such document on record is Exh. 76, Medical Examination-report of respondent No.1 Harikisan. On 27th July, 1971, Harikisan was examined by P.W. 12 Dr. Deshpande. This witness has stated that he was serving as Asstt. Medical Officer in Central Jail, Nagpur from 1970. Respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar was the Chief Medical Officer at that time. Respondent No.1 Harikisan was sent to his witness for medical examination on the basis of a requisition which is at Exh. 73 sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur. In that letter the Superintendent, Central Prison had requested the Resident Medical Officer, Central Prison, Nagpur to report about the health condition of Harikisan for his premature release. Dr. Deshpande after examining Harikisan found that respondent No.1 Harikisan was well built muscular young man of 25 years and opined that his health condition was satisfactory. Exh. 73 is the Medical Examination report of Harikisan signed by two doctors of the Hospital including P.W. 12 Dr. Deshpande. Thus on 27th July 1971, only 14 days prior issuance of Exh. 58, respondent No.1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. nor the said examination suggests that he was suffering from any ailment. It is surprising how Harikisan was suffering from T.B. within 14 days thereafter. In our view therefore the supplementary list Exh. 68 prepared showing the name of Harikisan as a T.B. patient becomes the false documents. It is thus clear that it came to be prepared at the instance of Dr. Jainendrakumar who was entrusted the work of preparation of list as a Chief Medical Officer. No recommendations could be sent by Jail Authorities unless certified by Dr. Jainendrakumar. 28. The Second instance of the medical examination of respondent No.1 Harikisan is found on record dated 8-10-1976. On that date P.W.8 Dr. Barlinge examined respondent No. 1 Harikisan on a requisition Exh. 104. Exh. 105 is the standard card prepared of the examination. His X-ray examinations are also taken on that date. They are at Exhs. 106 107. Jainendrakumar. 28. The Second instance of the medical examination of respondent No.1 Harikisan is found on record dated 8-10-1976. On that date P.W.8 Dr. Barlinge examined respondent No. 1 Harikisan on a requisition Exh. 104. Exh. 105 is the standard card prepared of the examination. His X-ray examinations are also taken on that date. They are at Exhs. 106 107. The token card is given to the patient which he was to bring when he comes for treatment. According to P.W. 8 Barlinge on ill examination of sputum nothing was found. In other words he opined that respondent No.1 Harikisan was not suffering from T.B. on 8-10-1976. Shri Padhye learned Counsel for the respondents however, argued that this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that it is possible that the result of sputum examination may be negative even then the patient may be suffering from T.B. Shri Padhye further argued that this witness has admitted that there can be various stages of T.B where lungs can be damaged after sometime. Much stress has been given about certain admissions given by this P.W. 8 Dr. Barlinge as regards nature of infection of a person suffering from T.B. On the basis of this cross-examination the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is a lethal blow to the prosecution case from the cross-examination of P.W. 8 Dr. Barlinge. In our view the so called admissions given by Dr. Barlinge in his cross-examination relate to the nature of the disease and much of the part of his cross-examination is devoted to the academical discussion. But there is no admission to show that respondent Harikisan was showing any positive sign of T.B. when he was examined on 8-10-1976. In any case, the examination of respondent No.1 Harikisan on 8-10-1976 is neither helpful to the prosecution nor to the defence. The examination of respondent No.1 Harikisan by this witness show that there was no evidence of previous pulmonary T.B. There is no reason to doubt the opinion of this witness which he has noted in Exh. 108. In any case this examination of Harikisan is after a period of 4 years after his release. Under the amnesty scheme of 1972 there is no case of respondents that the respondent No. 1 Harikisan was infected T.R after his release. There is no reason to believe that Exh. 108. In any case this examination of Harikisan is after a period of 4 years after his release. Under the amnesty scheme of 1972 there is no case of respondents that the respondent No. 1 Harikisan was infected T.R after his release. There is no reason to believe that Exh. 108 in any case established any symtoms of T.B. to Harikisan. 29. There has been a vain effort on the part of respondent No.1 Harikisan to get himself examined on 2-5-1970. The standard examination card has been produced by him at Exh. 109. It is surprising to note that card Exh. 109 shows that there was no evidence of previous pulmonary T.R region and no examination of sputum etc was made. Said Exh. 109 although claimed to be original it does not show that the patient was quiestent patient of pulmonary T.R treated in 1970. It is also surprising that Exh. 109 is not signed by any Medical Officer it does not give any sign of authenticity. P.W. 8 Barlinge has stated that Exhibit. 109 on the reverse side shows that the patient was quiestent patient of pulmonary T.B. treated in 1970. Then the note must have been taken on the statement of respondent No.1 Harkisan. It denotes that the patient only claimed that there was pain in his chest and was having T.R This witness further stated after perufing record that respondent. No.1 Harikisan was never treated in his Centre at Nagpur and was never given any Index Number. He further concluded that Exh. 109 does not show that respondent No.1 Harikisan was positive patient of T.R In any case, it does not show anywhere that since his conviction in 1965, Harikisan was treated in any Jail or Government Hospital or by any private doctor. No satisfactory record has been placed before the Trial Court to establish that Harikisan was referred by the Jail Authorities as T.R patient to any Govt. T.R Centre during his imprisonment. Thus we find that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.R after his imprisonment in the year 1965 till his release on 15th August 1972. Thus it is established beyond reasonable doubt that Harikisan was not a T.R patient when he was released on 15th Aug, 1972. 30. That takes us to the documents Exhs. Thus it is established beyond reasonable doubt that Harikisan was not a T.R patient when he was released on 15th Aug, 1972. 30. That takes us to the documents Exhs. 23, 24 25 as to whether those documents are genuine or a false record created to show that respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffer from T.B. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses to show that Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 which bear Index Number 23026 is pertaining to deceased Rahamatullah. In order to establish the real nature of Exhs. 23, 24, and 25 the prosecution has examined P.W 1 Pundlik, a prisoner, P.W. 5 Narayan, clerk in the T.R Hospital, Nagpur, P.W. 8 Dr. Barlinge, P.W. 9 Jayant Hand Writing Expert, P.W. 10 Dr. Tote of the T.B Hospital, P.W. 11 Dr. Deshmukh, P.W. 12 Dr. Deshpande and the Investigating Officer, P.W. 14 Chavan. 31. P.W. 1 Pundlik admittedly was a prisoner in Jail at the relevant time. He has stated that Harikisan Rathi was never in indoor patient in the hospital during his stay in jail. He also stated that there was a medical file of Rahamatullah. He has further stated that the words 'Harikisan Rathi in Exh. 24 is written in his hand written and that all the entries in Exhs. 23 24 were made by him. on the instructions of respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar. He also stated that those documents were handed over to him from the file by Dr. Jainendrakumar. He further stated that Exhs. 23 24 were written by him before on the instructions from respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar. He further stated that Exhs. 23 24 were written by him before the Silver Jubilee of Independance and thereafter the prisoners were released. 32. P.W. 5 Narayan Joshi was a clerk in the T.B. Hospital and a best witness to depose about the working in the T.B Hospital which he has elaborately stated. He has stated after seeing Exhs. 23, 24 25 that Index No. 23026 relates to Rahamatullah. He has personally prepared Exh.24 from the card. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness who had an occasion to know closely about the working of T.B Hospital and he actually prepared Exh.25. 33. P.W. 8 Dr. Barlinge also stated the reference slip dated 25-9-71 Exh.24 and 25-3-72 Exh. 25 relate to Index Number 23026 pertains to T.B. patient Rahamatullah. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness who had an occasion to know closely about the working of T.B Hospital and he actually prepared Exh.25. 33. P.W. 8 Dr. Barlinge also stated the reference slip dated 25-9-71 Exh.24 and 25-3-72 Exh. 25 relate to Index Number 23026 pertains to T.B. patient Rahamatullah. He further stated that respondent no. 1 Harikisan was never given Index Number for the treatment as a T.B. patient. P.W. 10 Dr. Tote who also was working as the Medical Officer in the T.B. Hospital, Nagpur, stated that the Index Number is given only once to a positive patient suffering from T.B. and that Index Number 23026 pertains to Rahamatullah and not to respondent No.1 Harikisan. This witness had the advantage of personally examining Rahamatullah on 25-9-1971 bearing Index No. 23026. He also had seen the X-ray photographs of Rahamatullah. He actually treated Rahamatullah and Exh. 84 bears his signature. His testimony has been corroborated by documentary evidence Exh. 84. In view of this voluminous evidence on record it is crystal clear that Index No. 23026 was of Rahamatullah and Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 were prepared for his treatment as a T.B. patient. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that these three documents do not pertain to respondent No. 1 Harikisan. 34. The claim of the defence is further falsified from the jail record which is produced before the Trial Court in the form of Article 32. There is no entry showing that respondent No.1 Harikisan was taken out of the jail on the dates mentioned in Exhs.23, 24 and 25 for purpose of medical examination. Thus it is evident that the name of respondent No. 1 Harikisan mentioned in Exhs. 23, 24 25 is obviously a forgery made by the respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar. When it has been convincingly established beyond any reasonable doubt that the three documents pertain to Rahamatullah. Those documents could not be in the name of respondents No.1 Harikisan. A plain and mere look of writing the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan on Exhs.23, 24 25 shows that they are written as if to show that these documents are about the treatment of respondent No. 1 Harikisan Rathi. Those documents could not be in the name of respondents No.1 Harikisan. A plain and mere look of writing the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan on Exhs.23, 24 25 shows that they are written as if to show that these documents are about the treatment of respondent No. 1 Harikisan Rathi. If Harikisan respondent No.1 was taken for treatment on 11-3-1971, 13-8-1971 as shown in Exh 23 and 25-3-72 as shown Exh 24 and 25-9-72 as shown in Exh. 25, then there would have been corresponding entries in the jail register about his taking out of the jail as it is a practice that unless an entry is taken in the jail register no prisoner is taken out of the jail. 35. A falsity of Exh. 24 being not in relation of respondent No. 1 Harikisan is also established from the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Tote. In his evidence, Dr. Tote him staled that on 25-9-71 he had treated Rahamatullah having Index No. 23026. He has deposed that except the word Harikisan Rathi the other information noted in that card is in the hand writing of Joshi and it bears his signature. Certainly when there is a positive unchallenged testimony of this witness that he has signed Exh.24 and his signature clearly appears on this document there cannot be any doubt that this document pertains to Rahamatullah and has been shown falsely by committing forgery in the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan. 36. That the documents Exhs. 23, 24 25 are the forged documents is also supported by the evidence of P.W. 9 Jayant Kotwal. This witness is the hand writing expert and was in the job for about 30 years. He has examined more than. 50000 documents in 2000 cases. He has clearly opined that Exhs. 23, 24 25 are in the hand writing of the person who wrote the documents B -1 to B-17 and B-18 to B-18(2). These documents are in the hand writing of respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar. The evidence of this hand writing expert clearly corroborates the testimony of other witnesses mentioned above in relation to the documents exhs.23, 24 and 25. Thus we are convinced that these documents are forged by respondent No.2 Dr. These documents are in the hand writing of respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar. The evidence of this hand writing expert clearly corroborates the testimony of other witnesses mentioned above in relation to the documents exhs.23, 24 and 25. Thus we are convinced that these documents are forged by respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar who on the basis of these documents prepared a supplementary list of 4 persons which include the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan on 10th Aug., 1972 to support the false claim of respondent No.1 Harikisan. 37. We have discussed in para 6 that the wife and mother of respondent No.1 Harikisan represented to get his premature release by sending various applications to the Government. In other words attempts made by Harikisan Rathi through various applications to Government to get released from the jail failed and, therefore when the amnesty scheme was made known in July 1971, respondent No.1 Hariprasad decided to exploit the opportunity for his benefit. Unfortunately respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar who was the Chief Medical Officer in the Central Jail fell prey to the wicked design of Harikisan. At that state steps were taken by both the respondent to cash the opportunity of the amnesty scheme. Respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar admits the name of Harikisan in the list of prisoners sent for medical examination on 8-9-1972. That entry at Exh.69 in Article 32 is proved and also admitted to be made by Dr. Jainendrakumar. It is an entry in Jail Register to show which prisoners were sent to medical examination. However, on the next day respondent No.1 Harikisan was shown to have been sent for medical examination but there is no record to show the outcome of examination of Harikisan except Exhs.23, 24 25. Both the accused were unable to show that the medical examination of Harikisan on 10th August, 1972 show that he was suffering from T.B. 38. The documentary evidence in the forms Exhs. 68 69 clearly establishes guilty conduct on the part of respondent No.2 Dr. Jasinendra Kumar to favour respondent No.1 Harikisan. Having failed in his attempts to get a certificate that respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. on 10th August 1972, as a last resort and in disperate attempt, he took out the old record from the Jail Hospital of a deceased prisoner Rahamatullah Exhs. Jasinendra Kumar to favour respondent No.1 Harikisan. Having failed in his attempts to get a certificate that respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. on 10th August 1972, as a last resort and in disperate attempt, he took out the old record from the Jail Hospital of a deceased prisoner Rahamatullah Exhs. 23, 24 25 and prepared forgery on those documents putting the name of Harikisan Rathi to create the evidence to show that respondent. No. 1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. This was obviously done by respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar to facilitate him to include the name of Harikisan in the list of T.B. patients to be sent to the Government to obtain the benefit under the amnesty scheme. In order to show documentary evidence to convince the Jail Authorities, Exhs.23, 24 and 25 were forged by respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar. 39. There is another circumstance which militates against the innocence of respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar. That on 8th August 1972 when he prepared the list of 17 prisoners, the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan was not mentioned. If according to respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendra kumar as a Chief Medical Officer of the Jail Dispensary was aware that respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. what prevented him to include the name of Harikisan in the first list. If he was aware that there are documents Exhs.23, 24 25 relating to the examination of Harikisan, then he would have included the name of respondent No.1 Harikisan in the first list dated 9th August, 1972 which is at Exh.55 showing the prisoners of (d) category of Exh. 52 and in that event he would not have been required to include the name of four persons in Exh. 58 on 10th August 1972. Exh.52 clearly states that in any case the names were to be sent by latest on 10th August 1972 and, therefore, in his hurry to oblige respondent No. 1 Harikisan, Dr. Jainendrakumar made to include the name of Harikisan in Exh 58 at the last moment. We do not find any mention in exhibit 58 that respondent No.1 Harikisan was sent before the Medical Board constituted 'by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagpur. It is to be noted that when the endorsement is found on the list of 17 persons vide Exh. 55 that they were produced before medical board, no such endorsement is found on Exh. It is to be noted that when the endorsement is found on the list of 17 persons vide Exh. 55 that they were produced before medical board, no such endorsement is found on Exh. 58 the supplementary list. 40. We further found that in his haste, respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar was successful to conceal the fact that Index No. 23026 does not pertain to respondent No.1 Harikisan and that it pertains to deceased Rahamafullah from the knowledge of the Superintendent, Central Prisons, Nagpur. He also concealed the fact that respondent No.1 Harikisan is not suffering from T.B. As a Chief Medical Officer, he alone could bring to the notice of the Superintendent, Central prisons whether respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.B. or not. In his answer to question 22 of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he admitted that he was asked to produce the list of T.B. patients. His statement that he examined 21 patient is proved to be false. The statement of this accused that he asked Dr. Pande to prepare the required list is found to be false through the evidence of P.W. 6 Pande. He stated that the list of T.B. patients at Exh. 53 is in his hand, that it bears the signature of accused No.2 and he prepared the list on the orders of accused No.2 P.W. 6 Pande further stated that he did not know the purpose of that list. Thus it is clear that Dr. Jainendrakumar was entrusted the work of preparing the list of T.B. patients. 41. All these circumstances clearly show that in order to support a false claim of respondent. No.1 Harikisan, respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar forged the documents Exhs. 23, 24 25. Dr. Jainendrakumar was the Chief Medical officer in Central Jail Hospital and has' access to all old files in the hospital. He had exclusive opportunity to commit forgery of documents which were easily available to him. Thus the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the aforesaid voluminous, convincing documentary as well as oral evidence in that behalf produced by the prosecution in this case. He had exclusive opportunity to commit forgery of documents which were easily available to him. Thus the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the aforesaid voluminous, convincing documentary as well as oral evidence in that behalf produced by the prosecution in this case. Therefore, the finding of acquittal for the offence of forgery reached by the Trial Court is absolutely in utter disregard and contrary to the abundent available evidence on record Thus in our view, the finding of the Trial Court that no forgery is committed by the accused No.2 is perverse. 42. There is no doubt that respondent No.2 jaindendrakumar was aware of the fact that the documents Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 are not .the genuine documents to establish the fact that respondent No.1 Harikisan was suffering from T.R However, in his efforts, he concealed the true fact from the jail authorities that Exhs. 23, 24 25 pertain to Rahamatullah and used those documents as genuine documents to support the false claim of respondent No.1 Harikisan that he is suffering from T.B. There is ample evidence on record to show that respondent No.2 Dr. jainendrakumar alone was doing the work of preparing the list of T.B and Leprosy patients who were entitled to get the benefit of T.R and Leprosy patients who were entitled to get the benefit of amnesty scheme. Thus no other inference except the guilt of the respondent No.2 is possible as regards the offence of forgery of Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 under the circumstances of this case. It is safe to reach the conclusion that Dr. jainendrakumar has committed the forgery as a result of criminal conspiracy between himself and Harikisan. 43. Shri Padhye, the learned Counsel for the respondents lastly contended that the sanction order Exh. 124 is not valid and legal and, therefore the whole trial is vitiated In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent No.2 jainendrakumar admitted that it is a sanction for his prosecution. Moreover both the respondents on an application made by the prosecution at Exhibit: 118 which is a notice to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents have admitted the genuineness of the sanction for the prosecution of respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar. Moreover both the respondents on an application made by the prosecution at Exhibit: 118 which is a notice to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents have admitted the genuineness of the sanction for the prosecution of respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar. Therefore, it is too late for Shri Padhye to contend at this stage that the sanction is defective for want of proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. He further contended that the sanction order suffer for want of non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority in as much as no documents Exhs., 23, 24 and 25 were before the Sanctioning Authority for his perusal. In support of his submission, he also placed before us a ruling in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab.1 We have no quarrel about the legal proposition laid down in the aforesaid ruling. But in view of the admission given by the respondent No.2 in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and in writing on Exhibit 118. it is too late to contend that the document Exhibits 23, 24 and 25 were not sent before the Sanctioning Authority. 44. A perusal of exhibit 124 clearly show that all the facts concerning the offence were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and thus there is substantial compliance of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to sanction the prosecution of respondent No.2 Dr. jainendrakumr. In our view sanction for prosecution is valid and the Trial Court also held accordingly. 45. We are constrained to observe that the respondent No.1 Harikisan was convicted for committing a serious offence of murder and was making various efforts to get himself prematurally released from the prison. His conviction was maintained by the judicial pronouncements and his attempts to get premature release had failed. But he got the benefit of amnesty scheme for early release on the basis of the forged documents Exhs 23, 24 and 25. In serious crimes, police has to spent lot of time. Similarly trial also involves considerable time. Huge public money and time is wasted during investigation, trial and appeal in the High Court After spending such considerable time and money. If a criminal is released on the basis of a false claim, laid by the prisoner, then naturally people's faith about the whole exercise is likely to be shaken. Similarly trial also involves considerable time. Huge public money and time is wasted during investigation, trial and appeal in the High Court After spending such considerable time and money. If a criminal is released on the basis of a false claim, laid by the prisoner, then naturally people's faith about the whole exercise is likely to be shaken. If the criminals in serious crimes are released by such fowl methods, the people are bound to loose faith in the administration of justice as well as in the administration of the Government. Therefore, in our view a serious crime has been committed by both the respondents in this case in creating false record by committing forgery as a result of criminal conspiracy of the record to facilitate the release of respondent No.1 Harikisan from jail, which otherwise was not possible unless the full term of imprisonment is suffered by Harikisan. It is only due to vigilance of P.W. 7 jagdish son of deceased Manohar that this fraud came to the notice of the Police. P.W. 7 jagdish has made repeated efforts by sending applications to the Central Government Ministers President and to the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra. The applications which have been described para 7 this judgment, depicts the efforts and anxiety on his part to persuade the Government to take suitable action against the criminals who have been released on the basis of a false medical certificate. The instances are not rare in recent times on the part of the criminals to get released by hook or crook from the prison. But for the vigilence of P.W. 7 Jagdish, this crime would not have come to the light. We, therefore, are constrained to take a serious view of the happenings in this case. 46. In view of our finding in this appeal, the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra who granted amnesty to the respondent No.1 Harikisan on the basis of a false claim would take suitable steps to revoke it. About 18-19 years have elapsed since the respondent No.1 Harikisan has been released and saved the remaining jail sentence for a serious crime of murder. The Government is therefore, advised to take appropriate steps in this direction. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra for appropriate action. 47. About 18-19 years have elapsed since the respondent No.1 Harikisan has been released and saved the remaining jail sentence for a serious crime of murder. The Government is therefore, advised to take appropriate steps in this direction. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra for appropriate action. 47. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the acquittal of respondents. We find that both the respondents have conspired together to create false documents for getting the benefit of amnesty scheme to respondent No.1 Harikisan Rathi and have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of their criminal conspiracy, respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar committed the offence of forgery in relation to the documents. Exhs. 23, 24 and 25 and thus committed the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the. Indian Penal Code, Similarly respondent No.2 Jainendrakumar used the forged documents as genuine for purpose of creating a record in favour of respondent No.1 Harikisan Rathi to show that he is suffering from T.B. on the basis of which, supplementary list Exh. 58 was prepared and thus committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was also hold that respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar being a public servant framed incorrect record in order to save respondent No.2 Harikisan Rathi from his t. further imprisonment and thus committed the offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. We also hold that respondent No. 1 Harikisan Rathi is guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 465, 486 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, we find that no offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code is proved. The forgery is not made in relation to court record. Similarly respondent No.2 Harikisan not being a public servant, he is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 48. After reaching the guilt of the respondents, we have heard Shri R.S. Padhye, learned Counsel for the respondent and Shri A.M. Tayade, learned A.P.P. for the State. Shri Padhye submitted that the respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar is likely to loose the job and thus will suffer double punishment. 48. After reaching the guilt of the respondents, we have heard Shri R.S. Padhye, learned Counsel for the respondent and Shri A.M. Tayade, learned A.P.P. for the State. Shri Padhye submitted that the respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar is likely to loose the job and thus will suffer double punishment. He further submitted that he has three daughters to be married and therefore, a lenient view as regards the sentence be taken. Shri Padhye further contended that respondent No.1 Harikisan will have to undergo the remaining sentence as his amnesty is likely to be revoked by the Government. These circumstances are pressed to take a lenient view as regard the sentence to be imposed on respondent No. 1 Harikisan, Shri. Tayade submitted that the respondents have committed serious offence and thus there is no reason to take a lenient view. Shri Tayade submitted that a deterrent sentence be imposed upon the respondents looking to the nature of the crime. 49. Considering the rival submissions, we find that the respondents do not deserve any leniency as regard the sentence. Both the respondents have committed the offence of forgery in relation to the official record in the jail with a view to get respondent No. 1 Harikisan released from jail. Respondent No. 1 Harikisan was convicted by the competent court for the offence of murder but for the forged document about his illness, he would have been required to serve full terms of his sentence. The respondents without any rhyme or reason tampered with the Government record and committed the aforesaid offence to get release of respondent No.1 Harikisan. Thus, we find no reason to take a lenient view. Respondent No.2 Dr. Jainendrakumar Badjate is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d. of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. of 3 months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo further in for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. of one month, He is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I, for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. of one month, He is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I, for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, i.d, of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for one month. He is also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, i.d. of fine, he has to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month. Respondent No.1 Harikisan Rathi is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 r/w Section 120(B), Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d, of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 465 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. of payment of fme, he shall further under go R.I. for one month. Respondent No.1 is also convicted under Section 471 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i,d. of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for one month. Both the respondent are held guilty for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. But no separate sentence is awarded. All the substantives sentences are, to run concurrently. Both the respondents are granted one month time to surrender to their bail. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 124.