These two revision petitions and the appeal arise out of the same judgment dated 31.1.84 passed by the learned session Judge, Manipur at Imphal in Criminal Appeal No.23(1) of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 3(1) of 1983 affirming the conviction of the, petitioner under section 120B, 465, 420, 419 and 468 of IPC passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central) Manipur in Case No. Crl. 148 of 1977. All the aforesaid revision petitions and appeal being heard together, this judgment will govern the aforesaid to revision petitions and the appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is naccessary to set out the relevant facts. On 5.7.77 at about 3.30 PM PW 3, K. Ibomcha Singh, who is the Assistant Manager of the State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. detected that counter foil of the cheque leaf No. OC/39,730271, the cheque book which was given to the Manipur State Co-operative Bank Ltd. by the Manipur Branch of the State Bank of India was blank. So he at once asked the Head Cashier, Hira Singh to ascertain % the matter from Khomdonbi Siogh, the Dealing Assistant and handed over the said cheque book to him. But The Hira Singh informed him (PW 3) that Khomdonbi Singh was not available in the Bank premises. K.Ibomcba Singh then phoned the State Bank Assistant, E. Tombi Singh and requested him to check up whether that particular cheque leaf counter foil of which was found blank was encashed or not. He also furnished the particulars of that cheque and after sometime he came to know from E. Tombi Singh that the aforesaid cheque bearing No. OC/39, 730271 was encashed on 5.7.77 for a sum of Rs. 1, 50,000/-. 3. On receipt of this information the Head Cashier and some other staff at once rushed to the Manipur Branch of the State Bank of India and ascertained on enquiry that the signatures of Assistant Manager and Head Cashier, Smti Binodini Devi were forged and thereby the cheque was encashed. On coming to know from Head Cashier, Binodini Devi that the aforesaid cheque was encashed by forging their signatures, the Assistant Manager, K.Ibomcha Singh reported the matter orally to the General Manager.Brajmani Singh (PW 11) about the encashment of the said cheque leaf by forging the signatures of him and Smti Binodini Devi. 4. On coming to know from Head Cashier, Binodini Devi that the aforesaid cheque was encashed by forging their signatures, the Assistant Manager, K.Ibomcha Singh reported the matter orally to the General Manager.Brajmani Singh (PW 11) about the encashment of the said cheque leaf by forging the signatures of him and Smti Binodini Devi. 4. The General Manager again ascertained the fact from the Manipur Branch of the State Bank of India and then sent for Khomdonbi Singh because he used to deal with the said cheque book. Khomdonbi Singh came to the Bank premises about 8 PM but during query he denied having any knowledge about that cheque leaf. Thereupon K.Ibomcha Singh reported the matter to the Officer-in charge, Imphal Police Station in writing and on the basis of that complaint, the officer imphal Police station registered a case ction 419/420/468/379 of IPC being Imphal Police Station Case No. 384(7) of |977. 5. In course of his investigation, the Officer-in-charge arrested the. accused Khomdonbi Singh and Dijoykumar Singh, recorded their statements and consequent upon their statements recovered a sum of Rs. l,10,000/-and Rs. 36.000/-in presence of the witnesses The Investigating Officer also got the specimen signatures of the accused Dijoyumar Singh examined by the handwriting expert and recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 of CrPC. The Investigating Officer then prayed for holding TI Parade in respect of accused DijoyKumar Singh and it was accordingly done. Thus after completing the investigation the Investigating Officer charge sheeted both the accused for their prosecution under section 380/419/420/468 and 120-B of IPC 6. The accused persons who were on bail appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who after hearing learned counsel of both the parties-framed 5 (five) distinct charges under section 419/34,465/34, 420/34 and I20-B.of IPC and 468/34 of IPC against both the accuseds. A separate charge under section 380 of IPC was also framed against the accused Khomdonbi Singh for having stolen the cheque bearing No. OC/39,730271. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty. 7. So, in order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also took aid of a good number of documents which were exhibited and marked as Ext. P 1 to P 51. The prosecution also took the aid of materials, namely, the bundles of the currency notes and some other materials. 7. So, in order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also took aid of a good number of documents which were exhibited and marked as Ext. P 1 to P 51. The prosecution also took the aid of materials, namely, the bundles of the currency notes and some other materials. ; 8 The accused led no evidence in support of their defence. However, their defence as would appear from the cross examination as well as the statements they made during the examination under section 313 of CrPC is that they were falsely implicated in the case. 9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however after appreciation of the evidence found both the accused viz, Dijoykumar Singh and Khomdonbi Singh guilty under section 120-B of IPC. He also found the accused DijoyKumar Singh guilty under section 465, 420, 419 and 468 of IPC, and after hearing both the accused persons convicted them under section 120-B of IPC and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further period of 2 months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused Dijoykumar Singh under section 419 and sentenced him thereunder to imprisonment for a term of one and half months. he was also sentenced him to imprisonment for 2 months and a fine of Rs. 100/-for commission of the offence under section 420 IPC. The accused was further sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month for commission of the offence under section 465 of IPC He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months and also to pay fine of Rs.100 for commission of the offence under section 468, IPC. The aforesaid sentences were, however, allowed to run concurrently and the period of detention he undergo during investigation was set off from the period of imprisonment imposed on both the accused persons/Aggrieved by this judgment and order both the accused persons preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. But the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. Before entering into the rival contentions it may be .mentioned here that during- arguments it was not disputed that the cheque leaf of the State Bank of India bearing No.OC/39,730271 was missing from the Manipur State Co-operative Bank Ltd; on or before 5.7.77 and that this cheque was also encashed on 5.7.77 for a sum of Rs. l,50,030/-Mr. Chonjohn Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not raise any objection against these two facts, on the other hand he has submitted that he does not claim that the recovered amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- belonged to the accused persons. In view of the evidence of record I, too, feel that learned counsel for the petitioners has quite rightly conceded to this point. On perusal of the evidence on record find that it has been abundantly proved that the cheque bearing No. OC/39,730271 was stolen from the Manipur State Co-operative Bank Ltd? and it was encashed for a sum Rs. 1,50,000/- on 5.7.77. 11. But what Mr. ChonJohn Singh has quite fervently argued is that the accused Khomdonbi Singh having not been found guilty under section 380 of IPC, the finding of the Courts below that he was guilty under section 120B of IPC is highly illegal and erroneous in as much as the entire statement of Khomdonbi Singh Ext. P 5 on the basis of which the amount of Rs. J.10,000/-recovered by the Police was inadmissible in evidence. It has been quite emphatically submitted by the learned counsel that this entire statement cannot be regarded as legal evidence as such the findings of the Courts below are erroneous. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel as on perusal of the judgment of Courts below I find that the entire statement of accused Khomdonbi Singh marked as Ext. P 5 was taken into consideration. 12. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the statement which has been marked as Ext. P 5, the English rendering of which is as follows:— "On 5.7.77 I have drawn a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- on forged cheque of Sl.No.OC/39, 730271 from the State Bank of India, Imphal Branch. P 5 was taken into consideration. 12. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the statement which has been marked as Ext. P 5, the English rendering of which is as follows:— "On 5.7.77 I have drawn a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- on forged cheque of Sl.No.OC/39, 730271 from the State Bank of India, Imphal Branch. Out of this amount a sum of Rs.40,000/ I have given to my friend Sagolsem Dijoykumar Singh and P. Anuyaima Singh of Naor Menthong, Imphal and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was kept in the compound of Co-operative Bank Ltd. inside a plastic where no one can go. If I am taken there I would handover to the Police. 13. It has already been stated above that learned counsel for the petitioners has quite forcefully submitted that this whole statement Ext. P 5 was inadmissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It may therefore be proper and desirable to look into the provision laid down under section 27 which says ; "Provided that, without any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence,in the custody of the Police Officer so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.” 14. It, therefore, appears that the first condition necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of the fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of receipt of this information the accused must be in the police. custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information as relates, distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. So in view of the above provisions the statement Ext. P 5 has to be split up into two components and to separate the admissible from the inadmissible portions. According to this provision only that part of the statement which was the Immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered would be the legal evidence. Accordingly the part of the statement namely, "and the remaining amount of Rs.1,10.000/- was kept 'in. the compound of Co-operative Bapk Ltd. inside a plastic which no one can see. According to this provision only that part of the statement which was the Immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered would be the legal evidence. Accordingly the part of the statement namely, "and the remaining amount of Rs.1,10.000/- was kept 'in. the compound of Co-operative Bapk Ltd. inside a plastic which no one can see. If I am taken there I can handover to Police" is the immediate and direct cause of the fact .discovered. Therefore this portion can only be admitted into evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also not disputed that consequent upon this information the currency notes of Rs. 1,10,000/-were recovered. 15. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, it is found, relied on the entire statement Ext. P 5. But as already stated this entire statement cannot, form legal evidence. Only the last part of the statement as quoted above can be taken as legal evidence. Both the Courts below also placed .reliance on the circumstantial evidence namely, the accused. Khomdonbi Singh left the office on that day before 3 PM. But this circumstance cannot be taken as a strong piece of evidence by reason of the fact that it will appear from the judgment of the trial Court that this attendance register was not maintained rigidly. The trial Court also held that since Dijoykumar Singh was not an employee of the Co-operative Bank it has to be presumed that the accused Khomdonbi Singh forged the cheque and memorandum for the purpose of cheating. Finding of the trial Court is that has there been no such agreement and the accused Khomdonbi singh be not a party to the agreement he would not have known where a part of the* cheated money was concealed and with the above findings came to the conclusion that the offence under section 120-B was established. But it may be borne in mind that such presumption cannot take the place of proof. I have already mentioned above which portion of the statement Ext. P5 is admisible in evidence. The leaving of the office before 3 PM may be one of the inefiminating circumstances but that cannot be a conclusive proof There is no incriminating circumstances against him. So, the evidence on the bails-of which the finding of conviction Under section 120B, IPC was made does not appear to be sufficient. 16. P5 is admisible in evidence. The leaving of the office before 3 PM may be one of the inefiminating circumstances but that cannot be a conclusive proof There is no incriminating circumstances against him. So, the evidence on the bails-of which the finding of conviction Under section 120B, IPC was made does not appear to be sufficient. 16. That apart section 196 (1) (b) of CrPC envisages that no court shall take cognizance of a criminal conspiracy to commit such Offence except with .the previous sanction of the Central Govt. or the State Govt. In the instant case the evidence on record does not show that the prosecution took necessary sanction for filing a complaint under section 120 B of IPC. 17. So, in view of the above facts and circumstances and particularly fot want of sanction under section 196, sub-section (1) CrPC, I am constrained to hold that accused Khomdonbi Singh is entitled to get acquittal of the charge for commission of the offence under section 120-B of the IPC. Similarly the other accused viz Dijoykumar Singh is also entitled to get acquittal of the offence under section 120 B of IPC as the offence of conspiracy cannot survive where the co-accused is acquitted. The charge of conspiracy was against this two- accused only. But trial for other substantive charges cannot be vitiated. 19. It is argued by Mr. Chonjohn Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement Ext:P7 on the basis of which the amount of Rs. 36,000 was recovered can not from part of the legal evidence. I have already dealt with this point and shown which part of such statements can go in evidence. Applying the above test it can be said that part of statement which distinctly led to the recovery of the sum of Us. 36,000/-will go in evidences 20. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the TI Parade which was held was nothing but a farce in the eye of law. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the face of the accused Dijoykuraar Singh was not covered when he was produced before the learned Magistrate. Accused Dijoykumar Singh was arrested on 9.7.77 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 10.7.77. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the face of the accused Dijoykuraar Singh was not covered when he was produced before the learned Magistrate. Accused Dijoykumar Singh was arrested on 9.7.77 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 10.7.77. The order dated 10.7.77 shows that the face of the accused Dijoykumar Singh was covered When he was produced before the Court on that day. The subsequent orders however do not indicate that the face of the accused was covered. But those orders also do'not show that the accused was produced before him without covering his face. The Courts below also made finding after perusal of the relevant evidence that the Investigating Officer made prayer to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for keeping the accused in judicial custody. It was also found by the Courts below that the face of the accused was covered when he was in police custody. So in view of the concurrent findings and particularly the order dated 10.7.77, I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused was produced before the Court without covering his face. 21. The third contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the witnesses who identified the accused during Test Identification Parade got the scope to see the accused before the TI Parade was held, it is submitted him that these witnesses went to Police Station and got the chance to see this accuesd Dijoykumar Singh in the Police Station. But Mr. Irabat Singh learned Public Prosecutor has repelled this argument by submitting that neither there is any evidence nor there is any cross examination to this effect Apart from that on perusal of the evidence on record I do not find any cogent reason to believe that these witnesses PWs 5, 8 and 9 who actually identified the accused during Test Identification Parade got any chance or scope to see accused before the date of TI Parade.: 22, It is, however, true that this Test Identification Parade was held after 19 days. But this delay does not appear to be a fatal one as the witness viz the employees of State Bank who actually identified the accused gave the reasons why they noticed the accused at the time of encashment of the cheque. 23. But this delay does not appear to be a fatal one as the witness viz the employees of State Bank who actually identified the accused gave the reasons why they noticed the accused at the time of encashment of the cheque. 23. The fourth point of criticism advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the specimen signatures of the accused were taken during investigation of the case for examination and comparison by Hand Writing Expert. According to him this was against law and hence finding on the basis of the report of Hand Writing Expert Is perverse. In support of his contention Mr. Chonjohn Singh has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of State of UP vs. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791 . In this case their Lordships held that such a direction by the Court to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison which may be instituted in the Court is not permitted. In view of this dictum it has to be held that specimen signatures of the accused Dijoykumar Singh which were taken as per the order of the Magistrate during investigation was not proper. 24. But the trial Court while disposing of this point gave reasons. The first of these reason is that this specimen hand writing of accused Dijoy Kumar Singh was obtained in the year 1977 i.e 3 years before the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The second reason given by the trial Court is that the specimen handwriting was taken as a tong standing practice prevailing in the State. The appellate Court also accepted those reasons as accused never raised any objection at the time when the learned Magistrate directed him to give specimen handwriting. However in view of the aforesaid dictum. of the Supreme Court even if this part of the evidence is excluded, I do not think it will help the accused much as it would be apparent from the evidence of PWs 5, 8 and 9 that at the time of encashment of the cheque the accused also put his signatare on the back side of the cheque and that signature has been marked as Ext. P 1 (6). 25. P 1 (6). 25. PW 5 RK Manisana Singh who was the Head Cashier of the Imphal Branch of the State Bank of India at the relevant time deposed that on that date Nodiachand Singh (PW 9) told him that he was short of fund and asked him to give a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for honouring the cheque. Accordingly as a matter of practice he arranged the sum and kept it on his table. He further deposed that Nodiachand Singh on receipt of the sum paid the said sum to the accused in his presence. This PW 5 has also given the description of denominations of the currency notes which he handed over to Nodiachand Singh. PW 8, Bhagirat Singh who was a Clerk-cum-typist in the State Bank of India at the relevant time deposed that cheque bearing No. OC/39,780271 was presented to him at the counter on 5.7.77 during office hours. He deposed further that he obtained the initial of the cheque bearer on the back of the said cheque and he found the initial of the bearer tallying with the initial of the bearer appearing in the memorandum of the said cheque. He identified the initial which was marked an Ext. P 1 (6). He has also quite categorically stated that accused Dijoykumar Singh whom he identified during Test Identification Parade put the initial Ext. P. 1 (6) as P. Jogeshwar Singh, PW 9 Nodiachand Singh the Cashier deposed that on the aforesaid cheque payee's name was Jogeshwar Singh. So, when he! called out the name of Jogeshwar Singh the accused appeared to take the payment and PW 5 identified him as a payee. This witness'has further stated that the accused was beside him for about 15 minutes and on the following day when he came to know that cheque was forged he recollected the identity of the accused and as such during TI Paradd1 he identified the accused who took payment of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This part of the evidence is found unshaken. 26. 1,50,000/-. This part of the evidence is found unshaken. 26. Now section 463, IPC which defines forgery reads :— “Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property' or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery”. Section 464 of the said Code reads :- “A person is said to make a false document - First who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed or at a time at which he know that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration, or…” A person; therefore, will be guilty of forgery if fie dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention mentioned in Section 464 of the Code. Under section 24 of the Indian Penal Code" states: ''Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. And under section 25 thereof, A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise." 27 A perusal of the provisions quoted above will make it clear' that the making of a part of a false document is also an offence if it is so made with dishonest intention. And under section 25 thereof, A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise." 27 A perusal of the provisions quoted above will make it clear' that the making of a part of a false document is also an offence if it is so made with dishonest intention. In the instant case it would be apparent from the facts discussed above that the accused S. Dijoykumar Singh' signed the name of P. Jogeshwar Singh on the back side of the cheque and thereafter got payment bf Rs. 1,50, 000/-.I have, therefore, no doubt that the accused made the document false with an intention to cause wrongful gain to himself and thus committed the offence of forgery within the meaning of section 463 of IPC. He was, therefore, rightly held guilty of making false document both dishonestly and fraudulently and thus his conviction under section 465 and 468 IPC is found to have been made rightly. 28. As regards the offence under section 419 of IPC, it may be stated here that the two elements necessary for commission of the offence are cheating and personation. The explanation to the section 416 of IPC shows that the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. So, the offence of cheating by personation must be held to have been committed where accused represented himself to be another person who may be imaginary or even non-existent. Section 419 IPC covers cases of simple cheating by false personation and when it involves the delivery of the property, the offence is covered by section 420 of IPC. That is to say, the offence of cheating is complete the moment the cheat obtains delivery of property as a result of his deception 29. The evidence and the surrounding circumstances I have discussed above, make it abundantly clear that accused Dijoykuirur Singh lookout the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from PW 9, the Cashier by means of fraudulent representation. PW 9, Nodiacband Singh the Cashier has quite categorically stated that accused S. Dijoykumar Singh whom he identified during TI arade appeared before him when he calledout the nape of P. Jogeshwar Singh and took payment of Rs, 1,50,000/- by means of fraudulent representation. The dishonest intention of the accused is, therefore well proved from the above facts and circumstances. PW 9, Nodiacband Singh the Cashier has quite categorically stated that accused S. Dijoykumar Singh whom he identified during TI arade appeared before him when he calledout the nape of P. Jogeshwar Singh and took payment of Rs, 1,50,000/- by means of fraudulent representation. The dishonest intention of the accused is, therefore well proved from the above facts and circumstances. I, therefore, find that the learned Court below rightly held him guilty under section 416 and as well as 420 of IPC. 30. Coming now to the sentence it may be mentioned here that the State of Manipur preferred an appeal for enhancement of the sentence. Mr. Irabat Singh learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the offence committed by the accused persons is a serious one and hence they should be adequately punished. But I have already held that prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused Warepam Khomdonbi Singh under section 120 B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and since he was not found guilty by the learned Courts below under any other charges there is no question of enhancement of sentence in respect of him. 31. Mr. Kh. Chonjohn Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners made no submission in respect of enhancement of sentence. But on perusal of the records I find that charges were framed against the accused person as far back its on 31.5.78. After closure of the evidence learned Public Prosecutor started his arguments on 15.12.80 but the case suffered some adjournments as the prosecution was allowed to examine some other witnesses although at last those witnesses were not produced. This is as per the order sheet of the learned trial Court. The evidence of prosecution side was closed on 26.8.81 and arguments started afresh on 1.9.81 and the arguments were closed on 11.5.82. The judgment was delivered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.1.83 i.e. after about a year and that to complete the trial a period of five years elapsed after framing of the charges. The offence committed by the accused is no doubt grave but it is found from the statement of accused S. DijoyKumar Singh recorded under section 313 CrPC that he was at that time only 23 years of age and this fact was also not controverted. The offence committed by the accused is no doubt grave but it is found from the statement of accused S. DijoyKumar Singh recorded under section 313 CrPC that he was at that time only 23 years of age and this fact was also not controverted. So, in view of his raw youth and lapse of a period of about 5 years to complete the trial during which the accused must have suffered mental agonies, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the trial Court which was upheld by the appellate Court may be considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 32. The result is that the revision petition bearing No. 12 of 1984 filed by the accused Khomdonbi Singh succeeds and it is accepted. The accused is acquitted of the charge under section 120 B of IPC. The accused Khomdonbi Singh is on bail and accordingly his bail bonds stand cancelled. 33 The revision filed by accused S. Dijoykumar Singh is partly allowed. He is also acquitted of the offence under section 120 B IPC but his conviction awarded under section 419, 420, 465 and 468 IPC is affirmed. The accused S. Dijoykumar Singh is on bail. He is, therefore, required to surrender to Court immediately to serve out the sentence. In view of my findings made above in respect of the enhancement of sentence the appeal filed the State is dismissed.