Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 80 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Md. Abdul Sattar

2002-02-06

L.MOHAPATRA

body2002
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the C.J.M., Bhawanipatna acquitting the respondent from charge under Section 468 of the Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution is that during the period from 3.1.1982 to 26.9.1982 the respondent was working as Head Moharir in the District Police Office, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna. During his tenure as Head Moharir he forged four Bus warrants in favour of S.I. M.Khan and A.S.I. A. Rahman. On verification, it was found that those two police officers were never posted in the district of Kalahandi. The Bus warrants were suspected to have been forged by the respondent for the purpose of cheating the Government with dishonest intention. Accordingly, an F.I.R. (Ext. 13) was lodged by the Accountant of the district Police Office, Kalahandi and upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted for the offence alleged to have committed under Section 468, I.P.C. 3. Twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prose¬cution to prove the charge and on consideration of the evidence through the learned Magistrate came to conclusion that there is some material to show that the documents had been forged by the respondent, intention to cheat having not been proved, he acquit¬ted the respondent of the charge. 4. Shri Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State challenged the said finding on the ground that the learned Magistrate having come to conclusion that the forging had been committed, intention could have been presumed and the respondent should have been convicted. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there being no evidence of either forging or intention to cheat, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. 5. P.W.1 is the Magistrate who had obtained specified signature and handwriting of the respondent under the direction of C.J.M., Bhawanipatna. P.W.8 is the Govt. Examiner of questioned documents attached to the C.B.I., Crime Branch, Resulgarh, Bhuba¬neswar. He examined the admitted documents along with the forged document and came to conclusion that the respondent who had written the standard writings had also written the disputed writ¬ings. In case of signatures, he could not give any definite opinion. P.W.8 is the Govt. Examiner of questioned documents attached to the C.B.I., Crime Branch, Resulgarh, Bhuba¬neswar. He examined the admitted documents along with the forged document and came to conclusion that the respondent who had written the standard writings had also written the disputed writ¬ings. In case of signatures, he could not give any definite opinion. Therefore, from the plain reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 it appears that writings found on the forged document have been written by the respondent, but so far as the signatures are concerned, there was no definite opinion expressed by the expert. I have carefully examined the evidence of other witnesses who have only stated about posting of the petitioner against a particular post and not in charge of the said document. But, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent had any intention to use the forged document for the purpose of cheat¬ing. Law is well settled that to establish the charge all the in¬gredients necessary for establishing such charge are necessary to be proved. Though prosecution to some extent has been able to prove that some handwritings on the disputed documents were proved to be that of the respondent, signatures appearing thereon had not been proved to be forged. Apart from that, there is abso¬lutely no evidence on record to indicate the intention of the respondent to use of such forged documents for the purpose of cheating. 6. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the offence under Section 468, I.P.C. had not been established. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.