Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS Dalpat Singh and Khuma have challenged their conviction under Ss. 420 and 468, IPC and sentence of one year R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count or in default further undergo three months S. I. upheld by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur by judgement dated 3-8-88. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda by his judgement dated 3-12-1982 in Cr. Case No. 203/80. In fact learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda held trial against four accused persons viz. Dalpat Singh, Chaina, Bhera and Khumu for charges u/ss. 420, 468 and 477-A, IPC. ( 3 ) AFTER concluding the trial and on the basis of the evidence oral and documentary on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda acquitted co-accused Chaina of all the charges, convicted Dalpat Singh for all the charges and sentenced him to undergo one year R. I. and Rs. 500/- fine or in default to undergo three months S. I. on each count. Co-accused Bhera and Khuma were convicted u/ss. 420, 468 and sentenced to undergo one year R. I. and Rs. 500/- fine or in default to further undergo three months S. I. on each count but acquitted them of the charge u/s. 477-A of IPC. ( 4 ) IT has been stated at bar that co-accused Bhera has expired. Now these revision petitions have been filed by petitioners Dalpat Singh and Khuma. ( 5 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that complainant Teka lodged a written report to the SDM, Udaipur that he and his brother are residents of Dulawato-ka-Guda, Majra, Mayra. They are in possession of certain Khasra land in their Khata in village Modi. Patwari Dalpat Singh in collusion with other accused persons got prepared three documents of sale of Rs. 99/- each and initiated mutation proceedings whereas no such documents were executed by him and land was also not sold by him. Thus three documents have been forged with signatures and thumb impressions in order to transfer their land. ( 6 ) AFTER usual investigation challan was filed against four persons and trial was held under the charges and resulted in conviction and sentence as stated above. Thus three documents have been forged with signatures and thumb impressions in order to transfer their land. ( 6 ) AFTER usual investigation challan was filed against four persons and trial was held under the charges and resulted in conviction and sentence as stated above. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the land was not sold by complainant Teka and Chatra. It is therefore not proved that the petitioners in any manner forged the documents Ex. P/1 to P/3. Petitioner Dalpat Singh was Patwari at the relevant time and he had nothing to do with the transaction of sale/purchase of the disputed land. Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited my attention to the statements of Teka and Chatra and contended that they have clearly admitted to have sold these lands and execution of the documents and it completely diminishes the entire prosecution case. ( 8 ) ON the other hand the learned public prosecutor has supported the judgements and strenuously argued, inviting my attention to para 12 of the judgement that Teka and Chatra have deposed about some kaccha Likhawat only but Ex. P/1 to P/3 are not kaccha Likhawat but executed on stamps paper, therefore, there is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the learned courts below. ( 9 ) I have gone through the documentary and oral evidence on record. I have also perused the judgements of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur. ( 10 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that the accused persons got executed sale deed Ex. D/1 for Rs. 1500/- on 31-10-73 for the same land which is stated to have been sold through Ex. P/1 to P/3 on stamps paper for Rs. 99/- each. This goes to show that Ex. P/1 to P/3 were forged in the year 1972 and, therefore, later on the accused persons got executed Ex. D/1 otherwise there was no need for the execution of Ex. D/1. ( 11 ) THERE is hand-writing experts opinion also that the signatures of Teka and thumb impressions of Chatra on Ex. P/1 to Ex- P/3 resemble the specimen hand-writing and signatures taken from accused Bhera and specimen thumb impressions taken from Khuma. The learned Addl. D/1 otherwise there was no need for the execution of Ex. D/1. ( 11 ) THERE is hand-writing experts opinion also that the signatures of Teka and thumb impressions of Chatra on Ex. P/1 to Ex- P/3 resemble the specimen hand-writing and signatures taken from accused Bhera and specimen thumb impressions taken from Khuma. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve the handwriting experts opinion as they have not been called for cross-examination. ( 12 ) THE attesting witnesses Hiralal and Prithvi Raj did not know Teka and Chatra prior to the execution of the said documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/3. Further more, Teka and Chatra have refused to have signed or given their thumb impressions on Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/3. On the basis of the above observations the finding of conviction and sentence of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda was confirmed. ( 13 ) HIRALAL PW-2 have proved the execution of documents Ex. P/1 to P/3 duly signed by Teka and bearing thumb impressions of Chatra. Teka PW-6 has deposed in his cross-examination that the land was given to him by has maternal uncle for livelihood and it was later on sold to him. He executed registered sale-deed Ex. D/1 but the loan taken on this land was not repaid by the accused persons and, therefore, this report was lodged by them. This witness denied the signatures on Ex. D/1 in cross-examination at the initial stage but later on he admitted that he executed sale-deed Ex. D/1 and it bears his signatures. ( 14 ) PW-7 Chatra admits in cross-examination that Bhera and others requested to him to pay cost and other expenses and transfer the land in their favour. He further admits that a "kaccha Likhawat was made on the paper and then it was made pakka Likhawat. The registry of the land was made one year after kaccha Likhapadi. ( 15 ) HIRA PW-8 has stated about execution of the documents before seven or eight years and the land was purchased by Bhera and Sanna from Teka and Chatra. Both of them have received the consideration. This witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by his police statement Ex. P/6. ( 15 ) HIRA PW-8 has stated about execution of the documents before seven or eight years and the land was purchased by Bhera and Sanna from Teka and Chatra. Both of them have received the consideration. This witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by his police statement Ex. P/6. ( 16 ) IT has been argued by the learned P. P. that from the perusal of the statements of Chatra and Teka it cannot be inferred and they have stated that they had executed Ex. P/1 to P/3 and Teka gave his signatures and Chatra gave his thumb impressions. Whatever the above statements have been given by above two witnesses is with regard to the registered sale-deed Ex. D/1 which was got executed on 31-10-1973. Teka and Chatra have clearly stated in their statements that they did not sale the land and did not execute Ex. P/1 to P/3. Chatra has categorically stated that he did not give any thumb impression on any stamp paper. It is, therefore, contended by the learned P. P. that their statements about execution of Ex. D/1, registered sale-deed, cannot lead to any conclusion that both the above witnesses have also executed Ex. P/1 to P/3. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have argued that Chatra has deposed about execution of kacchi Likhapadi and at that time Teka was also present with him and he had signed that kaccha Likhapadi and Chatra had given his thumb impressions. It is argued that this statement refers to kacchi Likhapadi i. e. Ex. P/1 to P/3. ( 18 ) LEARNED P. P. has further argued that Ex. P/1 to P/3 are on stamp papers and cannot be termed as kacchi Likhapadi. ( 19 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and also carefully considered the statements of Taka and Chatra and particularly the cross-examination. Ex. P/1 to P/3 alleged forged documents have been written on 17-6-72 whereas Ex. D/1, sale-deed, admitted to have been executed by the above witnesses on 31-10-1973. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses are referring to kacchi Likhapadi i. e. Ex. P/1 to P/3 because these documents though on stamp papers are not registered documents. Therefore, these documents are being treated by the witnesses as kacchi Likhapadi. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses are referring to kacchi Likhapadi i. e. Ex. P/1 to P/3 because these documents though on stamp papers are not registered documents. Therefore, these documents are being treated by the witnesses as kacchi Likhapadi. Both the witnesses have admitted this fact that Bhera and others did request them to retransfer the land to them by accepting the cost and the price of the land. Thereafter kacchi Likhapadi was executed and after one year the registered sale-deed Ex. D/1 was executed by Teka and Chatra. ( 20 ) IT appears that there arose some dispute between the parties about payment of loan which is claimed by Teka and Chatra that the accused persons did not make the repayment and, therefore, they lodged this report. ( 21 ) ON the basis of the above Facts in the cross-examination it is difficult to believe Teka and Chatra that they did not sale and execute the writings Ex. P/1 to P/3. I am unable to accept the argument of learned P. P. that the above two witnesses by saying about the execution of kaccha Likhapadi are no referring to the above Ex. P/1 to P/3 for above mentioned reasons. ( 22 ) ON the basis of the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove by legal and reliable evidence to prove that the petitioners committed forgery of Ex. P/1 to P/3. ( 23 ) UNDER these circumstances conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of the handwriting experts opinion. The handwriting experts opinion is not also definite in character when it has been mentioned in the report that the disputed signatures of Teka cannot be opined to have been made by Bhera conclusively on account of poor skill of the writer and disputed matter being too limited in extent. Further more, there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner Dalpat Singh committed any forgery by putting any signature or thumb impressions on Ex. P/1 to P/3. ( 24 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions I am of the view that the offences u/ss. 430, 468 and 477-A. IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners. The above important aspects of the case have not been considered in the impugned judgements. P/1 to P/3. ( 24 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions I am of the view that the offences u/ss. 430, 468 and 477-A. IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners. The above important aspects of the case have not been considered in the impugned judgements. I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to be acquitted of the charges u/ss. 420 and 468, IPC and also Dalpat Singh from 477-A of IPC. ( 25 ) IN the result, the instant petitions are accepted and the impugned judgements of the learned Courts below are set aside. Petitioners Dalpat Singh and Khuma are acquitted of the offences u/ss. 420 and 468, IPC. Petitioner Dalpat Singh is also acquitted of the offence under S. 477-A, IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Petition allowed. .