M. S. A. SIDDIQUI, J. ( 1 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the revision at the stage of admission itself. ( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 30. 9. 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 21/98 affirming the petitioner s conviction and sentence order dated 20. 9. 1997 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the co-accused S. L. Gupta and petitioner entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank. Roop Nagar Branch, Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Bank") in pursuance of which S. L. Gupta applied to the Bank for grant of Cash Credit facility. On 2. 3. 1984, the Bank granted the said facility to accused S. L. Gupta subject to his furnishing security for the same. However, on demand the accused S. L. Gupta created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank by executing the mortgage deed dated 11. 4. 1984 in respect of the property No. 2602/194, Tri Nagar, Delhi, which was jointly owned by the accused S. L. Gupta and his brother Suraj Bhan. As per the prosecution case, the appellant made a false representation as to his name before the sub-Registrar and signed the said mortgage deed by impersonating himself as Suraj Bhan. On 27. 5. 1994. Shri K. Rajgopalan, Zonal-Manager of the Bank lodged the F. I. R. in respect the alleged conspiracy and cheating. Investigation pursuant to the said report culminated into submission of a charge-sheet undersections 420/120-B/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner and Others. ( 4 ) ON an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 420/120-B and Section 487 IP. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand on each count. On appeal, the petitioner s conviction ana sentence was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up in revision before this court. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 420/120-B 467 Indian Penal Code. on the basis of the evidence of Suraj Bhan (Public Witness -5) and the Handwriting Expert M. L. Sharma (Public Witness -9 ). Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up in revision before this court. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 420/120-B 467 Indian Penal Code. on the basis of the evidence of Suraj Bhan (Public Witness -5) and the Handwriting Expert M. L. Sharma (Public Witness -9 ). Suraj Bhan (Public Witness -5) has simply stated that the mortgage deed (Ex. Public Witness -1/1 ) does not bear his signatures. He has nowhere stated that the said mortgage deed (Ex. Public Witness -1/1) was signed by the petitioner. Thus, the negative evidence of Suraj Bhan is wholly insufficient to prove the charges under Sections 420/120-B/467 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner. Eliminating the evidence of Suraj Bhjan (PW-5), there remains the testimony of the Handwriting Expert M. L. Sharma (Public Witness -9 ). In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and Ors. , 1999 (7) AD (S. C.) 749 = J. T. 1999 (6) SC 548, it was held that "an expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusion so as to enable the Judge to form his independent Judgment by the application of the criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case". As noticed above, Suraj Bhan (Public Witness - 5) deposed that the mortgage deed (Ex. Public Witness -1/1 ) does not bear his signatures. His lestimony finds ample corroboration from the evidence of M. L. Sharma (Public Witness -9) on point. But in the absence of other cogent evidence, opinion of M. L. Sharma (Public Witness - 9) cannot be relied upon to prove that the petitioner was a party to the alleged conspiracy hatched by the co-accused S. L. Gupta to cheat the Bank and in pursuance of which the petitioner made a false representation as to his name before the subregistrar and signed the mortgage deed (Ex. Public Witness -1/1 ) by impersonating himself as Suraj Bhan (Public Witness -5 ). In Ram Chandra Vs. U. P. State, AIR 1957 SC 381 , it was held that it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction. Public Witness -1/1 ) by impersonating himself as Suraj Bhan (Public Witness -5 ). In Ram Chandra Vs. U. P. State, AIR 1957 SC 381 , it was held that it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction. Consequently, the petitioner s conviction and sentence undersections 420/120-B/467 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in law. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the petitioner is set said. The petitioner s bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.