JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Shyamveer Gautam was convicted and sentenced by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittaurgarh by his judgment dated 31.12.1979 as follows- 1. For offence under Sec. 467 I.P.C. 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. For offence under Sec. 419 I.P.C. 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. For offence under Sec. 420 I.P.C. 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the convictions and sentences he preferred appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittaurgarh on 14.9.1987. Thus revision petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. 4. Briefly stated, accused petitioner was a temporary employee of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chittaurgarh Branch on 1.7.1972. One Ratan Singh Shaktawat was holding Saving Bank Account No. 570. The petitioner is alleged to have forged Ex.P/1, a letter to the Agent of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chittaurgarh Branch, in which it has been prayed that a draft for a sum of Rs. 4,600/- in favour of Shri Surendra Pal Singh be prepared and the amount as also bank charges be debited to the said Saving Bank Account. Its Debit Voucher Ex. P/2 was prepared by the accused petitioner on that date. The draft in favour of Surendra Pal Singh was prepared on the S.M.S. High Way Branch, Jaipur. It is alleged that the same was produced by accused petitioner at Jaipur and its payment was obtained. He represented himself to be Surendra Pal Singh. The matter came to light when Ratan Singh Shaktawat came to bank on 20.2.1973 and wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. He was told that he had withdrawn money on 1.7.1972. But Ratan Singh Shaktawat pleaded ignorance and gave in writing that he had never issued authority letter in prepare a draft in favour of Surendra Pal Singh. He stated that the letter Ex.P/1 did not contain his signature. Then first information report was lodged at police station, Chittaurgarh vide Ex.P/8. The matter was investigated. But Ratan Singh Shaktawat pleaded ignorance and gave in writing that he had never issued authority letter in prepare a draft in favour of Surendra Pal Singh. He stated that the letter Ex.P/1 did not contain his signature. Then first information report was lodged at police station, Chittaurgarh vide Ex.P/8. The matter was investigated. It was round that it was the accused petitioner who had committed the offences. Challan was submitted before the Magistrate who after trial convicted the accused petitioner and the conviction, as stated earlier, was upheld by the Appellate Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed illegalities in convicting the accused petitioner. He submitted that on reappreciation of evidence, offences are not proved against the petitioner. He also submitted that the learned Appellate Court committed errors of law in reappreciating the evidence. Therefore, according to him the petitioner deserves acquittal. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that so far as finding of guilt is concerned, the same cannot be disturbed as it has been recorded by appreciation of evidence by learned Magistrate which was reappreciated by learned Additional Sessions Judge. His contention is that the same cannot be any more reappreciated by this Court in view of latest judgment in JT 1999(1) SC 456, State of Kerala v. Puttumana lath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc. , wherein it has been held that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. In the said citation it has been held that ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own finding on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to bring to the notice of the Court the glaring features of this case. According to him there was extra ordinary delay in lodging the report with the police. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to bring to the notice of the Court the glaring features of this case. According to him there was extra ordinary delay in lodging the report with the police. Secondly according to him there is no satisfactory evidence that it was the petitioner who represented himself to be Surendra Pal Singh and obtained the amount of draft from S.M.S. High Way Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Jaipur. His further contention is that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner so that the big fishes who are authorities of the bank may be saved. In order to throw light on this aspect of the matter he carried me through the evidence. I do not find any such glaring feature in this case which would tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 8. So far as delay is concerned, the incident could have been brought to the notice of the authorities only when genuine account holder Ratan Singh Shaktawat would come and tell that he had not authorised anybody. Ratan Singh Shaktawat was holding account with the bank since 29.7.1963 as is proved from Ex. P/7 which is the card of the specimen signatures of Ratan Singh Shaktawat. Ratan Singh Shaktawat was produced as a witness before the trial Magistrate and has stated that Ex.P/1 does not bear his signature. He was not cross examined at all on behalf of the accused petitioner. Ex.P/1 was sent for comparison to C.T. Bhanage PW. 10 who is a handwriting expert. He has stated that purported signatures of Ratan Singh Shaktawat on Ex.P/2 were forged by person who wrote Ratan Singh Shaktawat on Ex.P/18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/23 were the papers on which accused petitioner Shyamveer Gautam wrote Ratan Singh Shaktawat before the Magistrate who attested these documents. He is RW. 11 Gulab Singh Darda. Thus, it was well proved that it was the petitioner who had prepared a false authority letter Ex.P/1 and forged signatures of Ratan Singh Shaktawat on Ex.P/1. It is well proved from the evidence on record that the draft was issued from the account of Ratan Singh Shaktawat. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not known as to who obtained the draft from the bank from Chittaurgarh. It is well proved from the evidence on record that the draft was issued from the account of Ratan Singh Shaktawat. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not known as to who obtained the draft from the bank from Chittaurgarh. It hardly matters, because it was the petitioner who produced the draft before S.M.S. High Way branch and it is so proved by RW. 9 E.D. Benjamin. Learned counsel tor the petitioner attacked in various ways on the statement of RW. 9 E.D. Benjamin but I find that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not committed any illegality in appreciating his evidence and have rightly believed him. This witness E.D. Benjamin RW. 9 has stated that it was the petitioner who brought draft on 4.7.1972 at S.M.S. High Way Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur where he was sub-agent. The said draft Ex.P/4, payment of which was made to the petitioner. He put his signatures as Surendra Pal Singh on it. It may also be stated that these purported signatures on the back of Ex.P/4 draft were compared with the writing of the petitioner available on Ex. P/24 to Ex.P/39. These writing of the petitioner were taken before. P.W. 11 Gulab Singh Darda It was RW. 10 C.T. Bhanage who compared the writing on the back of Ex.P/4 draft with the writing of the accused petitioner and came to the conclusion that the purported signatures of Surendra Pal Singh were made by the petitioner on the back of Ex.P/4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the big fishes have been left and a small fry has been involved, is without any force because the case of the defence was that Mr. E.D. Benjamin P.W. 9 was threatened that he would be involved in case he did not name the petitioner. But from the cross-examination of PW. 9 E.D. Benjamin nothing of this sort is found. RW. 9 E.D. Benjamin stated that he knew the petitioner by face because he had seen the petitioner in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chittaurgarh Branch and he knew that he was a bank employee. But from the cross-examination of PW. 9 E.D. Benjamin nothing of this sort is found. RW. 9 E.D. Benjamin stated that he knew the petitioner by face because he had seen the petitioner in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chittaurgarh Branch and he knew that he was a bank employee. He has categorically stated that it was the petitioner who obtained the payment of draft Ex.P/4 and he attested the payment because the petitioner had told him that he was an employee at Chittaurgarh Branch and he required money for purchase of a plot. He in good faith, since he knew the petitioner, identified the petitioner who put his signatures as Surendra Pal Singh in between 'G' to 'H' and T to 'J' at two places before him. It appears that the petitioner is a master mind of this forgery and fraud with the bank. He not only made the purported signatures of Ratan Singh Shaktawat on Ex.P/1 but also prepared the draft, which is Ex.P/4 and the transfer voucher is Ex.P/2 which is in the handwriting of the accused petitioners. It was contended by the learned counsel that E.D. Benjamin P.W. 9 is unreliable witness and the petitioner was shown to him before test identification parade was conducted. It hardly matters because the witness knew the petitioner from before. Actually even if no test identification parade would have been conducted, it would not make any difference. The witness knew the accused petitioner as a bank employee of the branch of Chittaurgarh but did not know his name because he had once come to Chittaurgarh and seen the petitioner there. He thus in good, faith identified him. There is definite evidence of RW. 8 Ratan Singh Shaktawat that he did not know any person named as Surendra Pal Singh. He was not at all cross examined on behalf of the accused petitioner. All said and done, I find that the Trial Court came to the correct finding which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner at all as no glaring feature is coming out which would entitle petitioner to acquittal. There is no miscarriage of justice either. 10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner at all as no glaring feature is coming out which would entitle petitioner to acquittal. There is no miscarriage of justice either. 10. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the revision petition is being decided in the year 1999 and the matter relates to 1972. It will in the interest of justice if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone. I find that the petitioner has remained in police or judicial custody only for 20-20 days. The case being old one is not a ground to reduce the sentence in such a serious matter when fraud was played with the bank by its own employee.Consequently, I do not find force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused petitioner are cancelled and the learned Trial Magistrate is directed to get the petitioner arrested and send him to jail so that the petitioner serve out the remaining part of sentence.Revision petition dismissed. *******