JUDGMENT 1. :- This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City who upheld the judgment of the trial Court whereby accused petitioner has been convicted under section 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code and sentenced respectively to three months' RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default furthre RI for 15 days), and six months' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further one month's RI). 2. In short, facts giving rise to this petition are that a written report was sent by the Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City on 18.12.74 to the SHO Gangapur City stating therein that when statement of Santoshilal Food Inspector was being recorded on 18.12.74 during trial in Cr. Case titled State Vs. Ashok Kumar for offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Chelaram had disclosed himself as Ashok Kumar S/o Lallu Sindhi on 21.7.74 when sample of oil was being taken, inasmuch as in the presence of witnesses Jahoor Khan and Damodarlal, he (Chelaram) signed naming himself as Ashok Kumar on Exhibits P1, P2 & P3; and that after the complaint for offence u/s PFA Act was filed against the accused, he denied himself to be Ashok Kumar (accused) but claimed naming himself as Chelaram. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report complaining that Chelaram disclosed to Santoshilal Food Inspector that he is Ashok Kumar and he signed himself as Ashok Kumar instead of Chelaram, criminal case was registered against Chelaram for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation, challan was filed against Chelaram (present petitioner) and the charges for aforesaid offences were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused petitioner was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has denied to have disclosed himself as Ashok Kumar and further stated that a sample was never taken by Food Inspector nor he had claimed himself as Ashok Kumar. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above by its judgment dated 23.5.1990 against which he had prefered criminal appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court. Hence this revision petition. 4. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above by its judgment dated 23.5.1990 against which he had prefered criminal appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Shri Biri Singh on behalf of the revision petitioner contended that both the courts below have placed reliance upon the evidence of Jahur (PW1) and Damodar (PW3) but failed to appreciate that Santoshilal (PW9) Food Inspector who is alleged to have got signature of present petitioner on the sample stated that he had taken a sample from the shop of Ashok Kumar but has not uttered a word that Chelaram had signed as Ashok Kumar. Shri Singh also contended that despite the fact that the Magistrate had sent speciman signatures to the police so as to ensure as to whether signatures marked on the sample were the same or not but the police had not sent it to the F.S.L., thereby whole allegation stood washed off and in these circusmtances it is a false case being created by the prosecution resulting in miscarriage of justice. Shri Singh also contended that in earlier case State v. Ashok Kumar wherein the petitioner is alleged to have disclosed himself as Ashok Kumar and signed as such on Exhibits P1, P2 & P3, Ashok Kumar has already been acquitted. 5. Shri Pratap Singh learned Public Prosecutor supporting the findings arrived at by both the courts below contended that there are no errors of law warranting invocation of revisional jurisdiction, inasmuch as there have been concurrent findings of fact based upon well appreciation of evidence which do not call for interference 6. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused not only the impugned judgments but also the evidence on record. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused not only the impugned judgments but also the evidence on record. The learned trial Court as also the appellate court both have placed reliance upon the statements of Jahur (PW1), Damodar (PW2) and Kailash (PW3) who are independent witnesses to the occurrence and accordingly held that these trioka witnesses have proved by stating in their respective statements that in their presence the present petitioner disclosing himself as Ashok Kumar to the Food Inspector had given sample of oil and upon having given the sample to the Food Inspector had also signed as Ashok Kumar on the seizure and search memoes etc. (Exs.P1, P2 & P3, namely Form No.6 notice for taking sample, receipt of payment made for sample taken, and arrest memo), while the Food Inspector was conducting inspection of the shop of one Ashok Kumar, so as to exercise the powers under the PFA Act. 7. From the record, I find that it is not the case of the present petitioner that Food Inspector Santoshilal (PW9) who is said to have taken sample of "Alsi" oil bore animosity with him. Santoshilal Food Inspector (PW9) proved that Chelaram disclosing himself has signed as Ashok Kumar on Ex.P.1 to P.3 not only in his presence but also in the presence of motbir witnesses. Moreover, Mahendra Singh (PW10) has proved that when he went to serve warrant for the arrest of Ashok Kumar (accused in PFA case) at the shop from where sample of Alsi oil was taken by the Food Inspector, then it was given out from the shop keeper that there was none in the name of Ashok Kumar, for which Sanwaldas had given a written note (Ex.P.5). From the evidence of Jahur Khan (PW1), Damodar (PW2), & Kailash Sahai (PW3), who are independent witnesses, it also stands proved that in their presence, Chelaram (present petitioner) had given sample of "Alsi" oil to the food inspector, putting signature and naming himself as Ashok Kumar. Thus the ingredients of offences under section 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code stood fully proved against the present petitioner. I find no error of law in concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below inasmuch as these findings do not call for interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Thus the ingredients of offences under section 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code stood fully proved against the present petitioner. I find no error of law in concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below inasmuch as these findings do not call for interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Merely because FSL report was not produced or that any witness has not uttered a word that Chelaram had signed as Ashok Kumar, it cannot be said that the ingredients of offences under section 419 & 468 Indian Penal Code are not proved especially when the documents like seizure and search memoes etc. (Ex.P.1 to P.3) containing signature of the present petitioner naming himself as Ashok Kumar have been proved by Food Inspector and motbir witnesses in whose presence the present petitioner had disclosed himself as Ashok Kumar and sold "Alsi Oil purchased by the Food Inspector for sample and upon preparation of memos had signed as Ashok Kumar in PFA case. Their testimonies have not at all been shaken or distored by the present petitioner during cross examination. 8. As regards the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Hanuman Prasad v. Laduram (1999(3) WLC (Raj) 352) , Fakhruddin Vs. State of MP AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326 , Ramjas v. State of UP AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1811 , the facts therein being distinguished the ratio of these decisions are not at all applicale to the instant case and the cited decisions do not render any help in advancing the case in favour of the present petitioner. In Hanuman Prasad v. Laduram , since there was no corroborative evidence to support the complainant's version regarding the fact as to what was the nature of the dispute he had with the accused and in what connection a cheque of Rs. 44,000/- was presented to him, inasmuch as from the material on record it was doubtful as to whether the cheque was at all given by the accused to the complainant and if so what were those sparing reasons for the complainant which prevented him by invoking provisions of Sections 137 or 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by presenting a complaint against the accused and in these circumstances it was held that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused after taking cognizance for offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. It was a case where the accused was acquitted by the trial court against which revision petition was filed but this Court did not think it proper to invoke revisional jurisdicition. Similarly in Fakhruddin v. State of MP (supra) while relying upon the decision in State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chhotalal Pathi AIR 1967 Supreme Court 778 the Apex Court observed that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not because the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but that too is not conclusive. The Apex Court then held that the evidence of the identity of writing receives treatment in three Sections viz. 45, 47 and 73 of the Evidence Act, and handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote and this is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary direct evidence. The Apex Court also held that besides direct evidence which is ofcourse the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes, namely a writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis and a third method (S.73) is comparison by the court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be writing of the person. 9. In Ramjas v. State of UP (supra) the High Court on appeal convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code on the finding that the appellant had atleast abetted the execution of one false affidavit of Govind Ram which in fact was signed by some person other than Govindram and that person was wrongly indentified by the appellant before the Oath Commissioner and thus the appellant was held guilty of abetting the offence of cheating by personation constituting the offence under section 419 read with 109 Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court therefore held that a person by merely inducing Oath Commissioner by wrong identification to attest the affidavit does not commit an offence under section 419 as the act done by the Oath Commissioner of attesting the affidavit does not cause any damage or harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property. 10. In the instant case the facts are totally different than in cited decision (supra), therefore, they do not help in any manner because as discussed above, the ingredients of the alleged offences (supra) are totally proved and founded by concurrent findings having been recorded by the courts below which do not call for invocation of revisional jurisdiction. Hence the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are devoid of any merit. 11. As a result of the above discussion, this criminal revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, the impugned judgment dated 1.9.94 of the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City in Cr.Appeal No.10/90 upholding the judgment dated 23.5.90 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City in Cr. Case No. 75/83 (418/75) are hereby affirmed. Since the impugned sentence of the petitioner had been suspended, the learned trial Court is directed to get him arrested and send him to jail to serve out the impugned sentence in accordance with law. The petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of section 428, Criminal Procedure Code. The record be sent back to the trial court.Revision dismissed. *******