Judgment : This revision is against the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A. No.78 of 1990 confirming the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, in C.C. No.66 of 1989 for the offences under Secs. 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500 each. 2. The accused revision petitioner herein is the brother of P.W.2 and Senior paternal uncle of P.Ws. 1 and 3 to 9. One Shanmugha Nadar, who was the father of the accused, and P.W.2 had purchased shares worth of Rs. 5,000 in Nazereth Co-operative Mill, Tiruchendur, during his life time and after his death in the year 1966, his share has devolved on all his legal heirs. Admittedly, the accused P.W.2 and their brother’s children P.Ws.1 and 3 to 9 are jointly entitled to this share. The prosecution case is that the revision petitioner accused herein forged the signatures of P.Ws. 1 to 9 in the consent letters Ex.P-21 and P-22 to transfer this share exclusively to him deceiving the other sharers and therefore, he has committed the offences under Secs. 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, Ex.P-21 purports to be the consent letter of P.W. 1 and his brothers and sisters, who are examined as P.Ws.2 to 9, agreeing for the transfer of their share to the revision petitioner. Ex.P-22, purports to be the consent letter given by P.W.2 the brother of the accused. The revision petitioner accused sent the requisition letters Exs.P-20 and P-25 in the year 1981 to transfer the share to his name in view of the consent given by the other sharers. On the basis of these letters and the consent of the other sharers under Exs.P-21 and P-22, the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Mill, in their meeting, resolved for the transfer of the share, to the revision petitioner and thereafter the share certificate were given to him, for which he issued the receipt Ex.P- 28. On the basis of these letters and the consent of the other sharers under Exs.P-21 and P-22, the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Mill, in their meeting, resolved for the transfer of the share, to the revision petitioner and thereafter the share certificate were given to him, for which he issued the receipt Ex.P- 28. P.W. 16, the staff of Nazereth Co-operative Mill has spoken in his evidence about the letter of the revision petitioner under Exs.P-20 and P-25 and also the nomination Ex.P-24 given by the revision petitioner and the subsequent follow-up action of the Mill by the Resolution of the Board of Directors under Ex.P-26 to transfer the share to the revision petitioner and the receipt Ex.P.28 issued by the revision petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the share certificates, by him. 3. Even though the revision petitioner accused during the trial before Magistrate did not admit the signatures in the letters Exs.P-20 and P-25 addressed to the Cooperative Mill to transfer the share to his name and also his signatures in the nomination letter Ex.P-24 and the letter for the payment of the necessary fees Ex.P.23 and the receipt Ex.P.28 acknowledging the share certificate now, the learned senior counsel Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai represents that he is not disputing the revision petitioner’s signatures in the abovesaid documents intended for the transfer of the shares to the revision petitioners name and he concedes that these documents sent to the Nazereth Cooperative Mill for the transfer of the share contain the signatures of the revision petitioner. But the only contention raised in this revision is with regard to the genuineness of the signatures found in Exs.P-21 and P-22. 4. As mentioned above, Exs.P-21 and P-22 purport to be the consent letters given by P.Ws. 1 to 9 for the transfer of the share certificate to the revision petitioner herein. According to the learned senior counsel Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, these consent letters contained the genuine signatures of P.Ws. 1 to 9 given by them in the year 1981, but on account of the dispute between them in the year 1985 and the civil suit initiated by the revision petitioner P.Ws.1 to 9 have been set up by one Madasamy and the revision petitioner has not committed forgery of Exs.P-21 and P-22. So far this aspect is concerned, the learned senior counsel Mr. So far this aspect is concerned, the learned senior counsel Mr. Vanamamalai raised only three points in this revision and they are: (1) the evidence of P.W. 19 cannot be relied upon as he is an accomplice, (2) the evidence of the expert C.W.I is not helpful as he has not given the reasons in his evidence for coming to the conclusion that Exs.P-21 and P-22 contain the forged signatures, and (3) as the trial Magistrate had expressed that without the evidence of the expert, he was unable to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the forgery alleged and the expert C.W. 1 also has stated that he was not able to give any definite opinion as to the forgerer of Ex.P-21, the opinion, of the expert became useless therefore the trial Magistrate ought not have convicted the revision petitioner. 5. P.W.19 is a Village Administrative Officer, who has attested in Exs.P-21 and P-22 certifying that the signatures therein were signed before him. But in the evidence, P.W.19 has stated that the signatories to these letters did not sign before him, but as the revision petitioner brought the letters to him for attestation, stating that they were signed by the persons mentioned therein, believing his words, he attested them. The lower court accepting the evidence of P.W. 19, has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner herein ought to have created these forged documents as he took them to P.W.19 for getting attestation. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that in connection with this aspect, P.W.19 must be treated as an accomplice and his evidence cannot be relied on as the conviction cannot be on the basis of the evidence of an accomplice. The learned senior counsel, in support of his argument cited the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Hussain Umar v. Dalip Singhji, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 45, that was a case in which a number of persons were prosecuted for smuggling gold. A witness by name Mohammed Rafique was examined as P.W.69 and the question arose whether his evidence could be accepted. Hussain Umar v. Dalip Singhji, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 45, that was a case in which a number of persons were prosecuted for smuggling gold. A witness by name Mohammed Rafique was examined as P.W.69 and the question arose whether his evidence could be accepted. Even though two courts had found that the said witness Mohammed Rafique was not an accomplice, the Supreme Court from the evidence, had found that as the smuggled gold was melted with his assistance and he was asked to keep the matter secretly for handling the gold and that he was knowingly a party to melt the smuggled gold with intent to destroy the evidence of its foreign origin and to evade the restrictions on its import, the Apex Court took the view that he was an accomplice and has observed. “the witness concerned may not confess to his participation in the crime. But it is for the court to decide on a consideration of the entire evidence whether he is an accomplice. Rafique was an accomplice and his evidence cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of Yosuf and Chandiwala, the other witness. There is no corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice from an independent source.” The learned senior counsel referred to another decision Rustom Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1914 Oudh. 176, wherein also it is held that a prosecution witness, against whom, there is apart from his own statement, ground for suspicion that he was himself an participator in the very crime for which the accused are on their trial though strictly speaking not an “accomplice” he stands, in view of the provisions of Sec. 114, Evidence Act, practically on the same basis as an accomplice and the conviction ought not to be based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of such witness. According to the learned senior counsel, in this case, P.W. 19 has attested. Exs. P-21 and P-22 stating that the signatories therein had signed before him and having made such a statement in Exs. P21 and P-22 certifying the correctness therein, now, as he goes back from that statement as though he attested that on the representation of the revision petitioner, certainly, he is an accomplice for the offence and his evidence cannot be relied upon for the purpose of corroboration. This aspect has been considered by the trial Magistrate and he has found that P.W.19 cannot be an accomplice. This aspect has been considered by the trial Magistrate and he has found that P.W.19 cannot be an accomplice. An accomplice is one who either actually participated in the commission of the offence or assisted for the commission of such offence knowing the nature of the offence. In this case, except the fact that P.W. 19 had attested Exs.P-21 and P-22, there is nothing to show that he had knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures found in Exs.P-21 and P-22. For the offences alleged against the revision petitioner if P.W. 19 also is to be treated as an accomplice, P.W. 19 must have knowledge that the signatures in Exs.P-21 and P-22 were forged signatures or he should have assisted or abetted for preparing Exs.P-21 and P-22. When there is no evidence for accepting that, it cannot be said that P.W.19 had the intention to commit the abovesaid offences. It is true that though the signatories to Exs.P-21 and P-22 had not appeared before him, he has wrongly attested that those persons had appeared and signed before him, certainly, it would amount to false statement. When such a false statement was made, without any intention to commit fraud or derive any benefit, certainly it will not amount to any offence. At the most, disciplinary action could have been taken by his superior officer for such a false statement. When there is no evidence that P.W.19 was aware of the forged signatures therein or that he intended that this document should be made use of against the interest of anybody. I also feel that he cannot be treated as an accomplice. Sometimes, due to immense faith upon another person, one may act upon the words of the other, thinking that the same was innocuous. In this case as stated by P.W. 19, he attested Exs.P-21 and P-22, believing the words of the revision petitioner that they were signed by the persons mentioned therein. In view of the explanation given by P.W.19, it is made clear that P.W.19 was not a party to this transaction though he had attested this document, with a false statement that the signatories had singed before him. In view of the explanation given by P.W.19, it is made clear that P.W.19 was not a party to this transaction though he had attested this document, with a false statement that the signatories had singed before him. However, from the evidence of P.W. 19 the courts have accepted that what is stated by him in court is true and that the petitioner himself had brought these documents for attestation making it clear that Exs.P-21 and Ex.P-22 were brought by the revision petitioner for making use of those documents for his benefit. .6. As regards the other point raised by the learned senior counsel, relating to the evidence of the expert C.W.1. I find that there is no merit in this contention. According to the learned senior counsel, even though the expert C.W.I has stated that the signatures in Exs.P-21 and P-22 do not contain the signatures of P.Ws.1 to 9, by comparison of the sample signatures of these witnesses, he has not given the reasons in his evidence for arriving at such a conclusion and therefore his evidence is useless and as the reasoning was not given in the evidence, there was no cross examination also with regard to his conclusion and therefore, the evidence of the expert C.W. 1 has, no value in this case. The learned senior counsel referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramjanam Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 643. In that case, it is observed that the court could only proceed on the evidence given on oath in the witness box by the witness and not on the statement made in the letter. In that case, the evidence was given on oath by the witness who sent a letter to the Anti Corruption Department making certain allegations. But they were not repeated in the evidence on oath and therefore the Supreme Court observed that what he had mentioned in the letter was not mentioned in the evidence and hence the contents of the letter was not evidence. C.W.I in the case on hand, had compared the sample signatures of P.Ws. But they were not repeated in the evidence on oath and therefore the Supreme Court observed that what he had mentioned in the letter was not mentioned in the evidence and hence the contents of the letter was not evidence. C.W.I in the case on hand, had compared the sample signatures of P.Ws. 1 to 9 which were marked as Exs.S-1 to S-116 and the disputed signatures in Exs.P-21 and P-22, marked as Exs.Q-1 to Q-9 and after comparison of the signatures, the expert in his evidence has stated that the signatures in the disputed document Exs.P-21 and P-22 are not the genuine signatures of these witnesses. Without stopping with that, he has stated that he has given reasonings for this conclusion in his report Ex.C-9 which he had produced before the court. Ex.C-7 is the report of the expert C.W.I along with the reasonings for his conclusion. In this reasoning, annexed to Ex.C.7. the expert has considered the alignment between the letters, both disputed and sample, the skill of writing in both the documents, the formation of loops and curves in the letters, designs of the letters, line quality of the signatures, the relative size of the letters and also the details such as the beginning and the formations. When so much detail is given in the reasoning Ex.C-7, it cannot be stated that the expert has not given the reasoning. .7. With regard to the stand that the expert has not mentioned these reasonings in his evidence, I feel that this argument has to be straightway rejected because C.W.I the pert himself while producing Ex.C-7 before the court, has stated that he has given the reasoning in his report itself. The reasoning itself runs to seven pages and instead of repeating what he has given in Ex.C-7, he has simply stated that all his reasonings are found in Ex.C-7 report. When Ex.C-7 report is specifically mentioned by him in his evidence and also produced before the court, the argument that as he has not mentioned the reasoning by his mouth, it has to be taken that no reasoning is given, is not a sound or acceptable argument. If Ex.C-7 was not produced before the court, certainly this argument carries weight. When Ex.C-7 report is specifically mentioned by him in his evidence and also produced before the court, the argument that as he has not mentioned the reasoning by his mouth, it has to be taken that no reasoning is given, is not a sound or acceptable argument. If Ex.C-7 was not produced before the court, certainly this argument carries weight. As the witness himself has produced this document at the time of his evidence mentioning that reasons are found therein, the accused was not prevented from looking into the documents and cross examine the witness relating to the reasoning given by him. But the only question put to C.W.1 is whether he was asked by the police to find out whether this revision petitioner or his son Dhansing had signed the signatures marked as Exs.Q-1 to Q-8 for which his answer is that though he was asked to find out that, he was not able to come to a definite conclusion as to the identity of the person who signed these disputed signatures. But it was not suggested to C.W.1 that his opinion that the disputed signatures were not that of P.Ws. 1 to 9 is not correct or that his conclusion is erroneous. Therefore, now, it cannot be contended that as the expert did not give the reasons in his evidence, there was no need for any cross examination on these points. 8. The learned Senior Counsel argued that though the learned Magistrate in his order has mentioned that without the evidence of the expert, he cannot come to the correct conclusion and only at his instance, the expert was examined, but as the expert C.Q.I. also in his evidence has stated that he was not able to give any opinion as to the person, who signed the disputed signatures Exs.Q-1 to Q-8 and when the expert himself was not able to ascertain the person who committed the offence, the learned Magistrate ought not to have concluded that the revision petitioner has committed the offence and therefore the finding is erroneous. The learned senior counsel argued that even though the expert has given his opinion that the disputed signatures in Exs.P.21 and P.22 were not signed by P.Ws. The learned senior counsel argued that even though the expert has given his opinion that the disputed signatures in Exs.P.21 and P.22 were not signed by P.Ws. 1 to 9, that itself cannot be a conclusive evidence as the Supreme Court has expressed that the courts cannot convict a person solely on the testimony of the expert as the expert’s evidence is not regarded as conclusive. The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, A.I.R. 1992 S. C. 2100, wherein the Supreme Court observes as follows: "29. It is, therefore, necessary to exercise extra care and caution in evaluating their opinion before accepting the same. So courts have as a rule of prudence refused to place implicit faith on the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. Normally courts have considered it dangerous to base a conviction solely on the testimony of a handwriting expert because such evidence is not regarded as conclusive. Since such opinion evidence cannot take in the place of substantive evidence, Courts have, as a rule of prudence looked for corroboration before acting oh such evidence. True it is, there is no rule of law that the evidence of a hand writing expert cannot be acted upon unless substantially corroborated, but courts have been slow in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence, without more, because of the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility." In this case, the courts below have not based their conclusion on the mere opinion evidence of the expert C.W.1. But the persons, who purported to have signed these documents themselves have been examined as P.Ws. 1 to 9 and they have denied the signatures in these documents as not that of theirs. Both the courts have analysed their evidence and also have come to the conclusion that their evidence is acceptable as they being the own brother and brother’s children, would not come forward to depose falsely against the revision petitioner for the purpose of the small amount of Rs.5,000. When both the courts have given the reasons for accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, I cannot disturb this findings of the courts below. Based on the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws. When both the courts have given the reasons for accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, I cannot disturb this findings of the courts below. Based on the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 9, corroborated by the opinion of the expert C.W. 1 the courts have found that Exs.P-21 and P-22 do not contain the genuine signatures of these witnesses. Therefore, the courts below have found that the revision petitioner has created and used the forged documents for his benefit. 9. C.W. 1 in his evidence has compared the sample signatures, of P.Ws. 1 to 9 with that of the disputed signatures marked as Q-1 to Q-9 and has found that the disputed signatures are not that of these witnesses. But, he has stated that from the signatures shown to him, he was not in a position to give his opinion as to who wrote these signatures. This opinion of the expert cannot be said to be against the prosecution case. The expert was called upon to find out whether Exs.P-21 and P-22 contain the genuine signatures of P.Ws. 1 to 9. This has been found out by the expert. But sometimes it is not possible for the expert to fix the person who actually forged these signatures. Apart from the signatures of P.Ws. 1 to 9, the signatures of the revision petitioner P.W.1 9 and the son of the revision petitioner by name Dhan Singh, were sent to the expert and from these signatures, the expert was not able to find out the forgerer who wrote these signatures. For that reason alone, it cannot be said that the offence against the revision petitioner is not proved, because the revision petitioner might have asked some one close to him to write these signatures in Exs.P-21 and P-22 and as the person who wrote these signatures could not be traced, it cannot be argued that the revision petitioner cannot be the forgerer. Sec. 464, Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "464 making a false document: A person is said to make a false document: First Who is 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 knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed or Secondly:...... Thirdly:......" According to Chamers English Dictionary (1992 Edition), the words "make" has the meaning, "to fashion: frame: construct: to create: to bring into being: to produce: to bring about: to cause:. Hence, a forged document can be made or brought about through an other person also and the person who is responsible to bring about such a document is the maker of the forged document. The forgery need not be by the hands of the accused himself and it can be successfully done by one’s mastermind, executed through a skilled person. The person responsible for the forgery is also the maker. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 corroborated by the evidence of the expert, establish the truth that Exs.P-21 and P-22 are the forged document. The evidence of P.W.19 proves that the revision petitioner herein brought these documents to him for the attestation which fact proves that the revision petitioner himself should have been behind the forgery of these documents for his benefit. Further, the evidence of P.W.16 clinches the issue that this revision petitioner himself approached the Co-operative Mill with application to transfer the share to his name on the basis of these forged documents referring them as the consent of the other sharers P.W.16 has identified the revision petitioner as the person who sent the requisition for transferring the share and also would identify the revision petitioner as the person who received the transferred share certificates by issuing the receipt Ex.P-28. Therefore, it goes beyond doubt that the revision petitioner must be the person responsible for the creation of these forged documents for his benefit of transferring the share certificates which attracts the punishment under Sec. 467, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it goes beyond doubt that the revision petitioner must be the person responsible for the creation of these forged documents for his benefit of transferring the share certificates which attracts the punishment under Sec. 467, Indian Penal Code. As he created these documents for cheating his brother P.W.2 and his brother’s children, to have the share certificates transferred to his name and also used these documents in Nazereth Co-operative Mill and the shares also were transferred to his name on the strength of these documents, certainly, he has committed the offence under Secs. 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the courts below have rightly found that this revision petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000 for each of these offences cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, I find no reasons to disturb the findings of the courts below. 10. In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence, the revision is dismissed. However, in view of the G.O.Ms.No. 781, dated 14. 1990, 279 dated 22. 1992, 296 dated 20.2.1993 and 205 dated 22. 1994, the entire sentence is remitted and the revision petitioner cannot be arrested or detained. His bail bond is cancelled.