Judgment 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, C. B. L., Ranchi, in R. C. Case No. 16(A)/89(R) whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant namely Chandu Mahato under Secs. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(i)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Secs. 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code for a period of six months, one year, three years, five years, two years and five years respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in narrow compass is that in the year 1986 the appellant Chandu Mahto in conspiracy with some unknown persons impersonated himself as Jyoti Lal Mahto, staff No. 117772, Rigger, Capital Repair (M), Bokaro Steel Plant, submitted an application for non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 from the provident fund account of Sri Jyoti Lal Mahto by misrepresenting himself as Jyoti Lal Mahto. The application was filed along with the agreement alleged to have been executed by one Sri Sona Ram Mahto of village Telidih, Chas, showing that he was willing to sell his plot of land to Jyoti Lal Mahto for a consideration of Rs. 20,000.00 . The application was received in P.F. Section on 11-2-86 and after examining the admissibility payment voucher for Rs. 16,000.00 was passed in favour of Jyoti Lal Mahto and Cheque No. OC/50-709554 dt. 28-2-86 was prepared and delivered to purported Jyoti Lal Mahto on 6-3-86. It is alleged that the appellant opened a bank account No. 7032 in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., B.S.City, Bokaro, on 6-3-86 in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto with initial deposit of Rs. 100.00 and the Cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 was also deposited by him on the same date and amount of Rs. 16,000.00 was withdrawn vide withdrawal slip dated 6-3-86 by him. The account was introduced by Sri S. S. Singh, who identified the appellant. 100.00 and the Cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 was also deposited by him on the same date and amount of Rs. 16,000.00 was withdrawn vide withdrawal slip dated 6-3-86 by him. The account was introduced by Sri S. S. Singh, who identified the appellant. It was revealed that when Jyoti Lal Mahto came to know about the aforesaid withdrawal from his P.F. account, he submitted a complaint to Bokaro Steel Ltd. management on 30-10-86 and 24-11-86 alleging that he had not applied for any non-refundable amount from his P.F. account nor he received any such amount nor he opened any bank account in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank nor the amount was withdrawn by him. On his complaint, the matter was enquired into by the C.B.I. and the C.B.I. found prima facie case against the appellant Chandu Mahto and others and the F.I.R. was registered under Secs. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(i)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant, who was also Rigger having staff No. 117756 in Capital Repair Shop, Bokaro Steel Plant. During the investigation, it was found by the C.B.I. that the appellant had opened account in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank, B. S. City, and he had withdrawn the amount by forging the signature of purported Jyoti Lal Mahto. After completion of investigation sanction was obtained for the prosecution of the appellant from the competent authority and chargesheet was submitted against appellant, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, under the aforesaid counts. 3. The accused-appellant was charged under Secs. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(i)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which he pleaded not guilty and his defence is of complete denial. No defence witness was examined in the case. 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in the case. P.W. 1 Prem Kumar Jha, P.W. 2 Baleshwar Roy, P.W. 3 Nauni Gopal Sarkar, P.W. 5 Subhash Chandra Anand, P.W. 7 Md. Mustakim and P.W. 8 Sita Ram Das are all the employees of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. working in the P. F. Section. P.W. 1 Prem Kumar Jha, P.W. 2 Baleshwar Roy, P.W. 3 Nauni Gopal Sarkar, P.W. 5 Subhash Chandra Anand, P.W. 7 Md. Mustakim and P.W. 8 Sita Ram Das are all the employees of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. working in the P. F. Section. On careful consideration of their evidence as also the documentary evidence proved by them it is established beyond doubt that the application was made in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto for the withdrawal of non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 from his P.F. account in the year 1986 which was duly processed by the officials of the B.S.L. and the advance was sanctioned by Sri B. Mukherjee, Jr. Manager (PF) and Sri S. Sen Gupta, Dy. Manager (PF) and payment voucher was passed and cheque No. OC/50-709554 dt. 28-2-86 for Rs. 16,000.00 was prepared in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto. 5. P.W. 13, Jyoti Lal Mahto has deposed that somebody had withdrawn non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 from his P.F. account and when he learnt about this fact from the statement of accounts furnished to him for the year 1985-86 (Marked X/3 for identification), he made an application to the Deputy Manager (Accounts) (Exhibit-14/1) in which he complained that he had not filed any application for non-refundable advance but the statement of accounts for the year 1985-86 furnished to him shows that a sum of Rs. 16,000.00 has been withdrawn from his account and so he requested the authority to make enquiry into the matter. P.W. 13 has further deposed that on 4-11-86 he again filed same application (Exhibit 14/1). He has further deposed that on 30-10-86 accused-appellant Chandu Mahto, who also works in his department came to him and said that he should not agitate the matter otherwise he will lose his job and assured Jyoti Lal Mahto that he will get the sum of Rs. 16,000.00 . P.W. 13 was shown the signatures of purported Jyoti Lal Mahto on exhibit-4, 5, 9/1, 9, 14, X and X/2, to which he replied that the signatures do not belong to him. It is, therefore, manifest from the evidence of P.W. 13 that he had not applied for any non-refundable advance in the year 1986. 16,000.00 . P.W. 13 was shown the signatures of purported Jyoti Lal Mahto on exhibit-4, 5, 9/1, 9, 14, X and X/2, to which he replied that the signatures do not belong to him. It is, therefore, manifest from the evidence of P.W. 13 that he had not applied for any non-refundable advance in the year 1986. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and came to the following conclusions :- (i) that the appellant Chandu Mahto and Jyotio Lal Mahto were posted as Rigger Grade-II in Bokaro Steel Plant during the year 1986.(ii) that Jyoti Lal Mahto had not withdrawn non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 from his provident fund account in the year 1986.(iii) that the appellant had forged and fabricated the deed of agreement executed by Sona Ram Mahto and submitted an application for non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto from his P.F. accoudnt which was sanctioned by the authority of the P. F. section and without verifying the signature of the applicant payment voucher was prepared and the cheuqe for Rs. 16,000.00 was also prepared.I have scrutnised the evidence of the P.Ws. and find that the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the trial Judge on the basis of the materials available in the case record are correct and do not require any interference and I am equally of the view that the prosecution has established the fact that the non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 was withdrawn by imposter in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto from his P.F. account. 6 The next important aspect of the matter is that whether the appellant had opened Saving Bank Account No. 7032 at Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto and deposited the cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 or not ? In this connection, P.W. 12 Shatrughan Sharan Singh has deposed that he had his account inHazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank and on 6-3-86 he met one Yusuf Ansari and the appellant in the bank premises and Yusuf Ansari requested him to introduce him on the account opening form as also to identify his signature and accordingly, he identified Chandu Mahto by putting his signature on the account opening form (Exhibit-14). Later on, he came to know that accused Chandu Mahto had opened account in the bank in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto. Later on, he came to know that accused Chandu Mahto had opened account in the bank in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto. This witness has remained unshaken in his cross-examination and on the basis of his evidence it is well established that the appellant had opened the account in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank on 6-3-86 in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto. 7. P.W. 6 R. K. Narain is the Branch Manager of Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank, Bokaro Steel City, who has proved the statement of saving bank account No. 7032 (Exhibit-6), has deposed that the aforesaid account was opened on 6-3-86 with the initial deposit of Rs. 100.00 and on the same date cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 was deposited and encashed. He has also testified that the account was opened on introduction of Sri S. S. Singh (P.W. 12). P.W. 6 has also proved the account opening form (Ext. 7) opened in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto and has stated that the Investigating Officer had seized certain documents and had prepared the seizure list (Ext. 8), a copy of which was given to him. P.W. 6 has proved the Saving Bank Withdrawal form (Ext. 9) and Pay-in-Slip (Ext. 9/1). He, however, admitted that he was not present at the time of the opening of the account nor the then Branch Manager and the Clerk had signed in his presence. 8. It is established from the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 12 that the account was opened in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto by the appellant and in that account the disputed cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 was deposited. 9. The evidence of P.W. 15 Sri B. N. Sharma, Inspector C.B.I. goes to show that he had taken the specimen signature of Jyoti Lal Mahato in presence of the witness M. P. Sharma. The specimen signature of Jyoti Lal Mahto (Ext. 12 to 12/4) has been stamped and marked as S. 18 to S. 22 P.W. 15 had also taken the specimen writing of accused Chandu Mahto in presence of Baidyanath Ram (P.W. 11) who wrote Bharat Mahto (Exts. 13 to 13/3) and has been stamped and marked as S. 6 to S. 9. Similarly, the specimen writing of accused Chandu Mahto, who wrote Jyoti Lal Mahto was also taken by P.W. 15 (Exts. 13 to 13/3) and has been stamped and marked as S. 6 to S. 9. Similarly, the specimen writing of accused Chandu Mahto, who wrote Jyoti Lal Mahto was also taken by P.W. 15 (Exts. 13/4) to 13/7) were stamped and marked as S. 10 to S. 13 and the specimen writing of Chandu Mahto, who wrote Sona Ram Mahto (Exts. 13/8) to 13/11) were taken by P.W. 15 which use stamped and marked as S. 14 to S. 17 and the specimen writing of Chandu Mahto (Exts. 13/12 to 13/16) were marked S. 1 to S. 5. 10. The disputed application form of non-refundable advance from the P.F. account in the name of Sri Jyoti Lal Mahto containing his signatures on it were marked Q1 to Q6 (two sheets) and the payment voucher in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto were marked Q 7 to Q 9. The agreement paper containing signatures of Sona Ram Mahto, Bharat Mahto and Manbhool Mahto appearing on Ext. X-2 were marked as Q. 10 to Q. 12. The purported signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto on the account opening form in the bank (Ext. 14) were stamped and marked as Q. 12 A and Q. 13. The signature of Jyoti Lal Mahto on the pay-in-slip of Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank (Ext. 9/1) has been stamped and marked as Q. 14 and the purported signature of Jyoti Lal Mahto appearing on withdrawal form (Ext. 9) has been stamped and marked as Q. 15. The specimen writing/signatures of Chandu Mahto have been marked as S. 1 to S. 17 and the specimen signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto have been marked as S18 to S20. PW. 15 B. N. Sharma has deposed that the concerned papers seized by him as also the specimen writing/signature of Jyoti Lal Mahto, accused Chandu Mahto, Bharat Mahto and Sona Ram Mahto were sent for examination to the expert for verification. 11. P.W. 14 Sri Satya Narain Gupta is the handwriting expert working as Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Document, Hyderabad. He has deposed that the document of this case sent to his Laboratory by the S. P., C.B.I., Ranchi vide letter No. 599 dt. 15-2-90 for comparison and opinion which was received in his office on 22-2-90 and the same was marked to him by the Officer-Incharge of the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (Ext. 15). He has deposed that the document of this case sent to his Laboratory by the S. P., C.B.I., Ranchi vide letter No. 599 dt. 15-2-90 for comparison and opinion which was received in his office on 22-2-90 and the same was marked to him by the Officer-Incharge of the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (Ext. 15). He further stated that he examined and compared the questioned document and the standard document and came to the following opinion :- (i) the person Jyoti Lal Mahto who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S. 18 to S. 22 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q7, Q9, Q12 and Q13 to Q15.(ii) The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked S.1 to S.17 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q7, Q9, Q11, Q12 A and Q13 to Q15.He further stated that he prepared his report on which he signed and the Govt. Examiner, namely, Santokh Singh also examined the document of this case independently and came to the same conclusion. He has proved the forwarding letter of Santokh Singh (Ext. 16) and also proved his opinion report which is marked Ext. 17. He produced the negatives kept in one ballot vide Ext. 18 and the enlarged prints thereof which have been marked Exts. 20 to 20/19. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence. 12 From the evidence of the Hand Writing Expert (P.W. 14) it is well established that the specimen signature/writing of Jytoti Lal Mahto taken by the I.O. which were marked S. 18 to S. 22 did not tally with the specimen signatures and writings taken by the I.O. which were marked Q1, Q3, Q5, Q9, Q12, Q13 to Q15, which are the questioned documents. As such, it would appear that the specimen signatures and writings marked as Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q7, Q9, Q12, Q13 to Q15 had not been written by Jyoti Lal Mahto and were forged. 13. As such, it would appear that the specimen signatures and writings marked as Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q7, Q9, Q12, Q13 to Q15 had not been written by Jyoti Lal Mahto and were forged. 13. It further appears from the evidence of expert (P.W. 14) that when he examined and compared the admitted writing of Chandu Mahto which were stamped and marked S.1 to S. 17 with the disputed signatures and writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q15 he came to the conclusion that the same have been made by one and same person because of the similarities in general and individual habits occurring in them. P.W. 14 has given the details about the general writing habits, movement speed, skill, slant, spacing alignment, relative size and proportion of letters for coming to his aforesaid conclusion. It is, therefore, well established from the evidence of the hand writing expert P.W. 14 that the forged signatures/writings of Jyoti Lal Mahto and Sona Ram Mahto appearing on various documents which have been marked as Q1, Q3 to Q5, Q7, Q9, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q15 were written by accused Chandu Mahto because those disputed writings tallied with his admitted specimen signatures and writings which have been marked S.1 to S.17. After hasving reach to this conclusion, I can very well say without any doubt that it was the appellant, who had forged the signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto on the non-refundable advance application form from the provident fund account of Jyoti Lal Mahto (Exts. X to X/2) and had also forged the signatures of Bharat Mahto and Manbhool Mahto on the agreement (Ext. X/2) as also on the payment voucher (Ext. 5). It is also well established from the evidence of the expert that the accused had forged the signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto on the account opening form of Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., B.S. City (Ext. 7). The appellant had also forged the signature of Jyoti Lal Mahato on the pay-in-slip and on the withdrawal form (Exts. 9 to 9/1) and by forging the signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto he had withdrawn the sum of Rs. 7). The appellant had also forged the signature of Jyoti Lal Mahato on the pay-in-slip and on the withdrawal form (Exts. 9 to 9/1) and by forging the signatures of Jyoti Lal Mahto he had withdrawn the sum of Rs. 16,000.00 from the Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The evidence of the expert (P.W. 14) has proved beyond doubt the chain of circumstances emerging out from the prosecution version, inasmuch, it is established that the appellant made application before the authorities of the provident fund section of Bokaro Steel Ltd. for non-refundable advance of Rs. 16,000.00 in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto by forging his signatures on the application form and he managed to sign on the payment voucher in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto and obtained the cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 from the employees working in the P.F. section of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. No doubt, the employees working in the P.F. section were careless and not vigilant inasmuch, as without verifying the signature of the appellant from his gate pass they processed the loan application form and prepared the payment voucher and even on the payment voucher the appellant signed in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto but the employee concerned did not take pain to verify his signature at that stage and the appellant succeeded in duping them and obtained the cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 . The prosecution has established beyond doubt that it was the appellant who opened the account in Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank B.S. City in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto and managed to get him introduced by P.W. 12 S. S. Singh, who was also cheated and by practising fraud upon him, the appellant opened the account in the said bank. It was further established from the evidence of the expert and other witnesses that the accused deposited the cheque of Rs. 16,000.00 in the name of Jyoti Lal Mahto in the account opened by himin the bank and withdrew the amount from the bank on the same date. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before me that the normal practice in Bakaro Steel Ltd. is that the loan application is forwarded by the departmental head under whom the employee works because the departmental head will be in a position to recognise the employee and no fraud can be committed in such matters. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before me that the normal practice in Bakaro Steel Ltd. is that the loan application is forwarded by the departmental head under whom the employee works because the departmental head will be in a position to recognise the employee and no fraud can be committed in such matters. It appears that the loan application (Ext. 4) was forwarded by one S. C. Anand, Dy. Manager of Capital Repair of Bokaro Steel Plant and so no doubt could be entertained by the employees working in the P. F. Section because the application had been duly sent by the Dy. Manager, who put his seal. P.W. 5 S.C. Anand has been examined in this case and he deposed that he never forwarded any such application for non-refunable advance of Jyoti Lal Mahto nor it was ever produced before him for that purpose. He has denied his signature appearing on the loan application which has been marked as Ext. X/2. It would, therefore, appear that the signature of P.W. 5 was also forged on the loan application and inference can be drawn that it must have been done by the accused-appellant and none else. Apart from that, I find from the evidence of P.W. 13 Jyoti Lal Mahto that when he complained regarding the withdrawal of the amount from his P.F. account, the appellant told him not to proceed with the same and assured him that the amount will be refunded to him. So, this circumstance also shows that the forgery was committed by the accused appellant in conspiracy with someone but the other conspirators could not be ascertained by the investigating agency and the trial Court has taken note of it holding the firm view that somebody else also must have conspired with the appellant in committing the aforesaid forgery. 15. So, this circumstance also shows that the forgery was committed by the accused appellant in conspiracy with someone but the other conspirators could not be ascertained by the investigating agency and the trial Court has taken note of it holding the firm view that somebody else also must have conspired with the appellant in committing the aforesaid forgery. 15. It appears that the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sec. 477-A of the I.P.C. which reads as hereunder :- "477-A. Falsification of accounts.- Whoever being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entries in, or omits or alters or abets the commission or alteration of any material particular from or in and such book paper, writing, valuable security or account shall be punished with imprisonment of either discription for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both." In my opinion, Sec. 477-A, I.P.C. is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case because the appellant was neither a clerk nor an officer or servant working in such capacity made any falsification in accounts. Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. conceded to the effect that Sec. 477-A, I.P.C. is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sec. 477-A, I.P.C. recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. 16 On careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and after scrutinising the evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution had proved the charges under Secs. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471, I.P.C. and also under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Court was quite justified in convicting the appellant under the aforesaid counts. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471, I.P.C. and also under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Court was quite justified in convicting the appellant under the aforesaid counts. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court under Sec. 120-B, 420, 419, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. as also under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby upheld. 17. On the point of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is a case of the year 1989 and already a period of eleven years has elapsed. Hence, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence. Considering his submission, I feel that it will meet the ends of justice if the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Secs. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months under Sec. 120-B, I.P.C., one year under Sec. 419, I.P.C., two years under Sec. 420, I.P.C., two years each under Sec. 468 and 471, I.P.C. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial Court stands modified to the extent indicated above. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentences as referred to above.Appeal dismissed.