JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—-Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, which was pronounced by Special Judge, Solan in one trial instituted against both the appellants. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, has been that Shri R. S. Somra, appellant was the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Subathu and while so posted, he was alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with other appellant Jagan Nath Sharma and in furtherance of this conspiracy, appellant R S. Somra was alleged to have abused his official position being Branch Manager and accordingly fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs 15,000 in the name of one Shri Bhagat Ram (PW 5) on 12-?.-1984. This accused R. S. Somra was also alleged to have conspired further and in the same manner sanctioned and disbursed another loan of Rs. 14,500 in the name of one Lekh Ram (PW 6). All the necessary documents pertaining to both the loans were alleged to have been prepared and processed by the accused-appellant R. S. Somra and the signatures of both tht loanees, i. e. S/Sh. Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram were forged by accused Jagan Nath who was alleged to be a close friend of Mr. Somra. Further prosecution case has been that this Jagan Nath also forged the signatures of the guarantors, namely, Ved Parkash (PW 8) and one Jeet Ram, Prosecution also averred that the forged invoices/quotations regarding agricultural pump sets of M/s. Meera and Co, were also prepared by accused Jagan Nath, 3. Accused R. S Somra was charged to stand trial under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I. P. C and also under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while accused Jagan Nath was charged to stand trial under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. The trial Court, after conducting the trial, convicted and sentenced each of the two accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 each for the offence under section 120-B, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, each of the two accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Under section 420, I. P. C . 3,000 each for the offence under section 120-B, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, each of the two accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Under section 420, I. P. C . both the accused/appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 each In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 each under section 467, I. P. C. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Under section 468, I. P. C. appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 each and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants were further sentenced under section 471f I. P C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs, 3,000 each, in default of payment of which, each of the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant R. S. Somra was additionally sentenced under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (d). Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. It was ordered by the trial Court that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants on various counts were to run concurrently. 4. The aforesaid conviction and sentences have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the entire record has been scrutinised The trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, observed that the prosecution conclusively proved the following facts : (i) No loan was applied for by Bhagat Ram son of Thebru Ram of village Plasta and that no loan documents were signed by him. (ii) There was no person by the name of Lekh Ram son of Bhagat Ram in village Basti Gunana and Lekh Ram son of Mast Ram of the said village neither applied for loan nor any document was signed by him. (iii) The two guarantors Jeet Ram son of Sees Ram of village Chiyali and Ved Parkash son of Jagat Ram of village Basti Gunana never stood as guarantors for the loanees Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram. The guarantee deeds also have been proved not to have been signed by them. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that Jagan Nath accused had affixed signatures for the two loanees and the two guarantors. This inference was drawn as the handwriting expert examined during the trial opined that the specimen handwriting and signature of Jagan Nath tallied with the disputed signatures of the alleged loanees and alleged guarantors, Thus, the conviction was based by the learned Special Judge on the basis of the aforesaid alleged conclusively proved circumstances, coupled with the opinion of the expert mentioned earlier 5. I thinks the evidence on record, what to speak of being conclusive proof of the aforesaid facts, make the aforesaid factors to be of doubtful nature, in case the evidence examined during trial is appreciated in a legal manner. There is no dispute to the proposition that a heavy onus lays upon the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and this onus can be successfully discharged by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. Any reasonable doubt appearing in the prosecution case, has to be taken in favour of the accused 6. In the present case, there are certain circumstances reflected from the prosecution evidence itself, which make the case of the prosecution to be of doubtful nature, more-so, the aforesaid alleged conclusively proved circumstances, to be not free from doubt. 7. In order to secure conviction, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the following circumstances in the present case: (a) that the loanees Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram did not affix signatures on the loan documents including the loan applications. Somebody else signed for them ; (b) that the guarantors S/Sh. 7. In order to secure conviction, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the following circumstances in the present case: (a) that the loanees Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram did not affix signatures on the loan documents including the loan applications. Somebody else signed for them ; (b) that the guarantors S/Sh. Ved Parkash and Jeet Ram also never stood as guarantors for the loanees and they did not sign the alleged documents purported to have been signed by them ; (c) in case the aforesaid points are legally proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the signatures of the loanees and guarantors were affixed by none else than by accused Jagan Nath, who happened to be the friend of accused Somra and as such conspired with that accused in the present case, as has been the prosecution case. It has been the case of accused Mr, Somra that Bhagat Ram and Lekh Raj were genuine persons, who signed all the documents. Similarly, according to him, the guarantors Jeet Ram and Ved Parkash had actually signed the guarantee deeds. 8. Prosecution examined Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram, loanees also. Bhagat Ram appeared as PW 5 and deposed on oath that he never applied for loan to the said bank and after seeing the application Ex PW 1/E and other documents Ex. PW 1/F, Ex PW 5/1, Ex. PW 2/F, Ex. PW 1/G and Ex. PW 2/G, which were investment credit for purchase of pumpset, irrevocable letter of authority, hypothecation deed and vouchers respectively, he stated that he has not signed these documents. He very specifically deposed that he gave his specimen writings and signatures on 12 sheets Ex. PW 3/1 to Ex. PW 3/12 to the C. B. I. Inspector voluntarily. Similarly, Lekh Ram while appearing as PW 6 has also stated that he had seen—the loan application Ex. PW 1/C, investment credit for the purchase of pumpset Ex. PW 1/D, hypothecation deed Ex. PW 2/B voucher Ex PW 2/D, cash pay order Ex. PW 1/H. According to him, these documents did not bear his signatures. He further stated that he was the only person named as Lekh Ram in his village. He also stated that he gave his specimen signatures on six sheets Exs. P-l to P-6 voluntarily. 9. PW 2/B voucher Ex PW 2/D, cash pay order Ex. PW 1/H. According to him, these documents did not bear his signatures. He further stated that he was the only person named as Lekh Ram in his village. He also stated that he gave his specimen signatures on six sheets Exs. P-l to P-6 voluntarily. 9. It has been the prosecution case that there was no person like Lekh Ram per the address given in the loan application in that particular village. However, this Lekh Ram stated that he was the only person by that name in his village. At this stage, the statement of I O Sh V. K. Anand, who appeared as PW 24 can be referred. This witness del posed on oath that both PWs Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram told him that bank authorities issued notices to them, but they refused to receive the same, as they had not taken the loan from the bank. This statement only signified that these were the two persons, i. e. PWs 5 and 6 against whom notices of recovery have been given by the bank though they were denying to have taken the loan. That means, according to bank authorities, these two persons were the loanees who had signed the documents. 10. At this stage, the statement of Government Examiner, Questioned Documents, Sh. B. Lal, who appeared as PW 22, can safely be referred On the basis of the statement made by this witness on oath, only the documents pertaining to the handwriting of the two accused persons were sent for the Government Examiners opinion and the witness opined that the specimen signatures of R. S. Somra were similar to various questioned documents sent for comparison, which included all the documents alleged to have been executed by the two loanees and filled in by accused Somra. 11. The expert also opined that the specimen signatures of Jagan Nath were also tallying with the signatures and handwritings on various documents purported to be in the name of Bhagat Ram/Lekh Ram PWs, the alleged loanees. 12. There is nothing in the statement of this witness that he also examined the specimen signatures of PW 5 Bhagat Ram, PW 6 Lekh Ram with their disputed signatures on the application of loan and other documents. 12. There is nothing in the statement of this witness that he also examined the specimen signatures of PW 5 Bhagat Ram, PW 6 Lekh Ram with their disputed signatures on the application of loan and other documents. So, there is no evidence examined on record by way of an opinion of an expert, through which it could be said that the signatures of Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram found on various documents of loan did not tally with the specimen signatures of PW 5 Bhagat Ram and PW 6 Lekh Ram. They have made statement on oath that these documents did not bear their signatures. 13. It may be pointed out here that as revealed in the statement of I. O. and as referred to above, the bank authorities had issued notices to PWs 5 and 6 pertaining to the recovery of the loans under reference. This only meant that these two persons were the loanees so far as the bank authorities were concerned, however, these two persons were denying this fact. No doubt, they have denied that the documents did not bear their signatures, but the fact remains, to corroborate the statement of theirs, the I. O. procured their specimen signatures for comparing their signatures with the disputed one. It is really sorry to note that those specimen signatures were not at all sent for comparison for the opinion of an expert with the disputed signatures of these persons. Their sole statement made on oath denying those signatures, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, will not be legally competent to prove this fact and this lapse on the part of prosecution creates a reasonable doubt, which is to be weighed in favour of the accused. 14. It has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the State by learned Additional Advocate General that mere statement made on oath by these two witnesses can be taken as a legally competent evidence to conclusively prove the fact that the documents did not bear their signatures. I think, such a plea cannot be favourably accepted, especially when these are two persons who, according to the bank authorities, were real loanees and with this background, it was very much essential for the prosecution to have found corroboration to their aforesaid statements made on oath. I think, such a plea cannot be favourably accepted, especially when these are two persons who, according to the bank authorities, were real loanees and with this background, it was very much essential for the prosecution to have found corroboration to their aforesaid statements made on oath. For getting corroborative evidence in this behalf, the specimen signatures of these alleged two loanees were taken, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, it has not sent these for comparison with the disputed signatures. With this background, it cannot at all be said that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged documents did not contain the signatures of PW 5 Bhagat Ram and PW 6 Lekh Ram, but on the other hand, in the background of the aforesaid circumstances, this fact has been rendered very much doubtful. 15. Similarly, PW 7 Jeet Ram and PW 8 Ved Parkash the alleged guarantors, when examined on oath, stated that they did not give surety or stood guarantor in the present case, Shri Jeet Ram stated that he did not stand guarantee for Bhagat Ram while Ved Parkash PW 8 stated that he did not execute any guarantee deed in favour of Lekh Ram. Shri Ved Parkash stated that he did not sign guarantee deed Ex. PW 8/A Jeet Ram stated that he was an illiterate and he only put his thumb mark. He further added that he had taken loan from United Commercial Bank, Kuthar and also took loan from Chandi, but he did not know the name of the bank. It may be referred here that those documents alleged to have been executed by this witness for procuring loan from United Commercial Bank and from another bank from Chandi have not been brought on record so as to prove this fact that this witness was complete illiterate person and could only affix the thumb-impression. He was not even shown the guarantee deed alleged to have been executed by Jagan Nath in his name in the present case. 16. In so far as Ved Parkash PW 8 was concerned, his specimen signatures were taken on 10 sheets as stated by him which were Ex. PW 8/1 to 10. 17. Specimen signatures of Ved Parkash were not sent for comparison to the Examiner of Questioned Documents. 16. In so far as Ved Parkash PW 8 was concerned, his specimen signatures were taken on 10 sheets as stated by him which were Ex. PW 8/1 to 10. 17. Specimen signatures of Ved Parkash were not sent for comparison to the Examiner of Questioned Documents. Thus, there is no corroborative piece of evidence to support the statement of this witness that he did not sign the guarantee deed Ex. PW 8/A For the reasons discussed above, the version given by this witness is rendered doubtful, especially when there is no reasonable explanation rendered by the prosecution as to why the specimen signatures were not sent for comparison with the disputed signatures, to the expert. 18. As pointed out above, in the absence of other loan documents alleged to have been filled by PW 7 Jeet Ram while procuring other loan as stated by him, it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubt that this witness did not know how to read and write and affix his signatures, This aspect also creates doubt that this Jeet Ram could not sign, but could affix thumb mark alone. In this view of the matter, the version given by Jeet Ram is also rendered doubtful. 19. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, in so far as the signatures of the two alleged loanees and two alleged guarantors on various documents were concerned, it cannot be said that they did not sign the same, especially when this aspect of the matter is rendered very much doubtful as has been detailed above, 20. It has been contended on behalf of the State that the version given by the expert that the specimen signatures of Jagan Nath only tallied with the disputed signatures of the two loanees and that of two guarantors, therefore, it should be accepted as a valid evidence to have proved this fact beyond ail reasonable doubt. I think, such a legal inference is not available to the learned Additional Advocate General. 21. Needless to say, Experts statement is an opinion and it cannot be substantive in nature at all it is corroborative piece of evidence. Until and unless there is a substantive evidence examined during the trial that the alleged documents pertaining to loanees and guarantors were not signed by these persons, this opinion evidence will not carry any legal weight whatsoever. Needless to say, Experts statement is an opinion and it cannot be substantive in nature at all it is corroborative piece of evidence. Until and unless there is a substantive evidence examined during the trial that the alleged documents pertaining to loanees and guarantors were not signed by these persons, this opinion evidence will not carry any legal weight whatsoever. At the cost of repetition, the substantive evidence in this behalf, as discussed above, has been rendered doubtful and it being so, the corroborative evidence in the shape of statement of the expert, will not be of any legal help to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. Learned Counsel for the State has further argued that the factum of conspiracy in this case, was writ large, I think, in the background of the aforesaid circumstances, such an inference, again would not be avail able to the prosecution, It is correct that bad the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the signatures of the loanees and guarantors were not connected with the actual signatures of those persons, in that event, the inference of conspiracy could be there, but as has been held and discussed above, the prosecution has act been successful in establishing the fact beyond all reasonable doubt that the signatures on various documents of two loanees and two guarantors, were not actually their signatures, therefore, the inference of conspiracy by implication, cannot be there. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants have raised certain legal objections that in the absence of sanction to prosecute the appellant R, S. Somra, the trial would be illegal. It has further been submitted that the sanction given in favour of Shri Vijay Kumar Anand, S. I. by the C. J, M. to investigate the case was also illegal. 24. It may be pointed out that the services of accused R. S. Somra had been terminated. There is nothing on record to suggest that he was still in service when the challan was presented. 24. It may be pointed out that the services of accused R. S. Somra had been terminated. There is nothing on record to suggest that he was still in service when the challan was presented. In a case of present nature, where the accused was not in service at the time of filing of the challan, the sanction as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecution was not legally required, So far as this proposition was concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants had no dispute but his sole argument has been that his appeal against termination at that particular time was pending disposal though, in this behalf also, there is no legally competent evidence on record. Thus, the aforesaid objection does not carry any legal weight. 25. It has further been contended that Ex. PW 20/B, the sanction granted by the C J. M. in favour of Vijay Kumar Aaand, S. I. to investigate the matter, was of a mechanical nature and has to be ignored. According to learned Counsel, if this sanction is ignored, the entire investigation can be held to be illegal and on that score, the conviction is to be set aside. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended on behalf of the appellant. It is not a sanction given in a mechanical process; It is correct that the sanction order was not a detailed one, but it has to be read with context to the application preferred in this behalf Ex PW 24/A was the application put in by Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. Chandigarh in this particular behalf, wherein the following paragraph will be relevant to appreciate the objection being raised : “Previously this case was being investigated by Sh. Ram Kishan, Inspector, C. B. I : S P. E : H, P. Unit, Shim la who is now busy in the investigation of other important cases and all other Investigating Officers are also busy in other important cases. As such the above case has been entrusted to Sh. Vijay Kumar Anand, Sub-Inspector, S P. E : C B. I. : Chandigarh for further investigation. It is, therefore, requested that permission as required under section 5 (A) of P. C. Act, 1947 may kindly be granted to Sh. As such the above case has been entrusted to Sh. Vijay Kumar Anand, Sub-Inspector, S P. E : C B. I. : Chandigarh for further investigation. It is, therefore, requested that permission as required under section 5 (A) of P. C. Act, 1947 may kindly be granted to Sh. Vijay Kumar Anand, Sub-Inspector : S. P. E. ; C. B. I. : Chandigarh to investigate the said case." The aforesaid representation made in the application by Superintendent of Police, C. B, I., Chandigarh has been accepted by the C. J M. and on that account, the order permitting Vijay Kumar to investigate the case, has been passed. Thus, this objection being raised on behalf of the appellant also falls through. No other point has been stressed. 26. In view of the foregoing reasons, both the aforesaid appeals are accepted and as a consequence thereof, the conviction and sentences passed against the two appellants are set aside and they are acquitted after being given the benefit of doubt The fine, if any paid, be returned to them without any undue delay. The bail bonds furnished by them also stand discharged. Both these appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Appeals allowed. -