Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. By this judgment I dispose of Crl.Revision No. 180 of 1989 titled Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 197 of 1989 titled Partap Singh v. State of Haryana, as both these revisions have arisen from one judgment dated 18.2.1989 passed by the court of Additional sessions Judge, Hisar, who, maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under sections 409/467/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code awarded to them by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.10.1986. 2. It may be mentioned here that earlier three revisions were filed in this Court but during the pendency of the proceedings, Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Hari Ram has expired and vide my separate order of even date his revision has been dismissed as abated. Therefore, through this judgment. I am considering the cases of S/Shri Rajesh Kumar and Partap Singh petitioners of Crl. Revision No. 180 of 1987 and Crl. Revision No. 197 of 1989. 3. The proceedings in this case started on the complaint of Shri Hazari Lal son of Shri Ganesha Ram resident of village Dhangar, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar. He sent complaint Ex.PW11/F to Chief Minister, Haryana levelling allegations against B.D.& P.O. and officials of issuing permits of cement to city dwellers for consideration of money and embezzling about one lac rupees of draught relief fund by showing bogus expenditure. On this complaint an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was conducted by P.W.11 Gian Singh Inspector State Vigilance Bureau who found that for digging a pond in village Sirdhan and expenditure of Rs. 12,664/- was shown in the months of May, 1981, June, 1981 and July, 1981. On checking of muster roll and examining the labourers mentioned therein it was found that Sarvshri Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan, Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi had worked only from 30.4.1981 to 24.5.1981. They were paid only Rs. 184/- through Sahi Ram Panch without obtaining their signatures/thumb impressions on payment of their wages. In the muster roll, however, following payments were shown disbursed against their names :- Sr.No. Name of Labourer Payments shown as disbursed to June July Total them as labour charges for May 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 1. Ram Singh 40/- 216/- 72/- 328/- 2. Jai Kishan 40/- 232/- 64/- 336/- 3. Dev Kishan 32/- 240/- 56/- 328/- 4. In the muster roll, however, following payments were shown disbursed against their names :- Sr.No. Name of Labourer Payments shown as disbursed to June July Total them as labour charges for May 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 1. Ram Singh 40/- 216/- 72/- 328/- 2. Jai Kishan 40/- 232/- 64/- 336/- 3. Dev Kishan 32/- 240/- 56/- 328/- 4. Raj Bala 40/- 224/- 48/- 312/- 5. Kaushalya Devi 24/- 240/- 72/- 336/- Rs. 1640-00 4. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1640/- was allegedly shown to have been given to these five labourers. 5. Out of Rs. 1640/- shown as disbursement of the labour charges payment of Rs. 184/- was made through Sahi Ram and thus fictitious disbursement of Rs. 1456/- was shown and this amount was misappropriated. Sample finger impressions of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan and Sahi Ram, were taken and sent for comparison with their alleged thumb impressions on muster roll. It was found that the muster rolls were not carrying thumb impressions of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan and Dev Kishan and on payments for May and June, 1981 of Dev Kishan, thumb impressions of Sahi Ram were found. Payments of Rs. 72/- and Rs. 32/- shown to have been disbursed to Mukesh Kumar and his father Sahi Ram respectively for July, 1981 were not found to carry their signatures and they had also denied having received these payments. It was, therefore, found that the three accused had criminally misappropriated the amounts i.e. Rs. 1456/- Rs. 72/-, Rs. 32/- = Rs. 1560/- by criminal conspiracy. These payments were allegedly made by the accused Rajesh Kumar on the identification of accused Amar Singh and Partap Singh. 6. On complaint Ex.PA of Inspector Gian Singh, case was registered against the petitioners and their companion under Sections 409/420/471/120-B IPC. Lateron sample thumb impressions of Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi were also taken and compared with their alleged thumb impressions on muster roll and it was found that the same did not tally. It was also found that the amount for payment was withdrawn by accused Rajesh Kumar from the office of B.D. & P.O. Fatehabad. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned in the lower court which charge-sheeted them under Sections 409/467/471 read with Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was also found that the amount for payment was withdrawn by accused Rajesh Kumar from the office of B.D. & P.O. Fatehabad. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned in the lower court which charge-sheeted them under Sections 409/467/471 read with Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.10.1986 convicted the petitioners under Sections 409/467/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 409 read with Section 120-B IPC. In default of payment of fine the petitioners were directed to undergo R.I. for a period of one month. The accused were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC. In default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month. They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo R.I. for period of one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned trial Court S/Shri Rajesh Kumar and Partap Singh and Amar Singh filed an appeal before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who vide his impugned judgment dated 18.2.1989 dismissed their appeal and still not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Courts below, the present revisions by S/Shri Rajesh Kumar and Partap Singh. 9. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Shri Rajesh Kumar petitioner and Shri D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of Partap Singh petitioner and Shri D.P. Singh, learned Addl. A.G. Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. 9. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Shri Rajesh Kumar petitioner and Shri D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of Partap Singh petitioner and Shri D.P. Singh, learned Addl. A.G. Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that government money was entrusted to petitioner Rajesh Kumar who entered into criminal conspiracy with Partap Singh petitioner and Amar Singh deceased and they allegedly forged false receipts of payment and these false payments were attested by Partap Singh and Amar Singh and, therefore, they are responsible for the commission of the aforesaid offences. It is established on the record that the amount of draught relief was withdrawn by Shri Rajesh Kumar and he had shown certain payments as disbursed on account of labour charges on the attestation of Amar Singh and Partap Singh. Shri Rajesh Kumar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also admitted that he made the payments to different workers on the identification of Partap Singh village Secretary and Amar Singh who was Sarpanch of the village at the relevant time and the work of digging earth of the pond in the village was taken up in his supervision and that he used to sign the muster roll by way of attesting the payment. 11. The sole point for determination is whether the payments were actually made to the workers or not ? 12. Shri Partap Singh was working as village Secretary at the relevant time. From the statement of Shri Gian Singh PW-11 it stands proved that there is a misappropriation of Rs. 1560/- and this fact is evident from the muster roll which has been forged. The specimen finger prints of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan, Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the disputed thumb-impressions in the muster roll and as per report of the Director, the specimen finger impressions and the disputed thumb impressions do not tally with each other. There is also a direct evidence of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan, Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi that they did not receive the payments allegedly shown to have been made to them in the muster roll. There is also a direct evidence of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan, Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi that they did not receive the payments allegedly shown to have been made to them in the muster roll. In these circumstances, it is evident that the money has not been paid by Rajesh Kumar to the rightful persons and rather fictitious entries were made in the muster roll and those entries were attested by Shri Partap Singh petitioner and Shri Amar Singh deceased. 13. Shri Baldev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Shri Rajesh Kumar, vehemently submitted that conviction cannot be based on the expert evidence or by relying upon the report of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon AIR 2000 S.C. 1691, State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde and others wherein in paras No. 40 and 41 it was held that opinion of the handwriting expert that the scribe who wrote the slip and the specimen manuscripts, was the same, is not enough without examining the expert as a witness in Court and no reliance can be placed on such opinion of the expert. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts in hand. Firstly, there is a report of the Expert which is further corroborated by the direct evidence of Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan, Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi who have categorically deposed that they did not receive the payment. In view of the direct evidence of these witnesses who have no axe to grind against the petitioners, it is difficult for me to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The report of the Expert is corroborative piece of evidence to the direct evidence. It is the case of the petitioner Shri Rajesh Kumar that the money was received and otherwise also the entrustment of the disputed amount to Shri Rajesh Kumar is proved from the documentary evidence Exs. PW20/J to PW20/Q. When the entrustment is established then it is for Rajesh Kumar petitioner to show that the money has been disbursed to the rightful persons in a rightful manner on the project. PW20/J to PW20/Q. When the entrustment is established then it is for Rajesh Kumar petitioner to show that the money has been disbursed to the rightful persons in a rightful manner on the project. Moment it is shown that the thumb-impressions of some of the workers on the muster roll are forged, the only presumption is that the money has been misutilised and misappropriated by the person to whom it has been entrusted. As those entries have been attested by Shri Partap Singh and Amar Singh who were the Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch, respectively, therefore, their involvement in the false disbursement is writ large and they are responsible for the forgery of the documents and for the misappropriation of the amount. A perusal of muster roll register Ex. PW11/B would show that the payments of the labourers are shown to have been made by Shri Rajesh Kumar petitioner and Shri Amar Singh and Partap Singh had certified that the payment of the labourers had been made in their presence and this fact itself suggests that every body was a part to the conspiracy. One of the arguments, raised by Shri D.S. Bali, learned counsel for petitioner Partap Singh, was that Ram Singh, Jai Kishan, Dev Kishan and Raj Bala and Kaushalya Devi did not raise hue and cry that they had not received the payment through Shri Sahi Ram Panch and, therefore, the story of misappropriation is false. It was also suggested that it is the case of the prosecution that the money was actual disbursed through Shri Sahi Ram and not by Rajesh Kumar, and therefore, he is not responsible for any crime. The submission of Shri Bali cannot be accepted. There is a documentary evidence which is suggestive of the fact that the money was entrusted to Shri Rajesh Kumar and in these circumstances, it was his duty to ensure that the money must be disbursed to the rightful workers or the labourers. If he has taken the assistance of Shri Sahi Ram, he cannot escape his liability. The wrong entries have been made in the muster roll which have been attested by Shri Partap Singh and Shri Amar Singh. It is in the statements of the workers Ram Singh, Jai Kishan and others that they have received only a sum of Rs. 184/- from Shri Sahi Ram and apart from that they had not received any amount. The wrong entries have been made in the muster roll which have been attested by Shri Partap Singh and Shri Amar Singh. It is in the statements of the workers Ram Singh, Jai Kishan and others that they have received only a sum of Rs. 184/- from Shri Sahi Ram and apart from that they had not received any amount. When the disbursement of the bigger amount has been shown in the muster roll, then in that situation it was also to be shown that this payment has been made to the rightful persons. The expert has compared the thumb-impression of the workers with the disputed thumb-impression and the report is in the negative. Coupled with the direct evidence of the workers, the only inference is that money has been misappropriated by the present two petitioners along with the deceased Amar Singh. 14. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the petitioners are suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last several years and the criminal prosecution started against them in the year 1982. The alleged embezzlement is of the year 1981 and therefore, petitioners should be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection if relief is granted to the petitioners in the matter of sentence in view of the fact that they are suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings since 1981. 15. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the ends of justice would suffice if the substantive sentence awarded to S/Shri Rajesh Kumar and Partap Singh under Sections 409/120-B, 467/120-B and 471/120-B is reduced to one already undergone by them. However, they will be liable to pay fine as imposed by the learned trial Court upon them. With this modification in the matter of sentence, Crl. Revision No. 180 of 1989 filed by Rajesh Kumar and Crl. Revision No. 197 of 1987 filed by Shri Partap Singh are hereby dismissed.