JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 13.02.1989 passed in T.R. No. 09 of 1996 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting the Appellant under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the 'P.C. Act') as well as Sections 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year on each count. 2. Prosecution case, as made out in the F.I.R. Ext.26, lodged by Inspector of Police-Vigilance, Deogarh (not examined), is that in course of vigilance enquiry it was found that the Appellant was working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in the office of the Executive Engineer, Agro Industries Corporation at Deogarh from 1980 to January, 1982. He was entrusted with the work of both preparing the bills of and disbursing cash to the contractors as per the payment orders made by Executive Engineers who were posted from time to time during that period. The Contractors used to take advance payments from time to time which amounts were adjusted from their final bills. P.W.4 Edward Lakra was working as a job rate contractor and used to take advances in respect of work for reclamation of lands for settlement of people of the submerged area of Rengali Dam Project in Deogarh Sub-Division. Although the vouchers disclosed payments of Rs. 31,600/- as advance and Rs. 13,468 towards running bills, totalling Rs. 45,068/-, to P.W.4 against his total bill amount of Rs. 54,730/-, in course of vigilance enquiry P.W.4 denied to have received Rs. 14,100/- in respect of 12 vouchers Exts.7, 8, 9/12, 10 to 13, 14/1 and 15 to 18 or to have signed on those vouchers acknowledging receipt of the amounts. It was alleged that the Appellant forged the signatures of P.W. 4 on the vouchers and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14,100/-. On receipt of the F.I.R., the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Northern Division, Sambalpur directed to register the case under Sections 5(2) read with 5(i)(c) of the P.C. Act as well as Sections 409/468 of the I.P.C. against the Appellant and entrusted the Inspector of Police-Vigilance, Deogarh with the investigation. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined, documents were seized and report of the Handwriting Expert was obtained by the investigating officers, including P.Ws. 12 and 13, who were in charge of investigation during different periods. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined, documents were seized and report of the Handwriting Expert was obtained by the investigating officers, including P.Ws. 12 and 13, who were in charge of investigation during different periods. On completion of investigation, P.W. 12 submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant for commission of forgery and falsification of accounts in respect of Ext. 16, the voucher No. 581 dated 29.06.1981, showing false payment of Rs. 1000/- only to P.W.4 under Sections 5(2) read with 5(i)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 467 and 477-A of the I.P.C. The Appellant faced the trial on charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 5(2) of the P.C. Act as well as Sections 467 and 477-A of the I.P.C. 3. The Appellant took the plea of the complete denial to the prosecution allegations. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, P.W.1 to 13, and also relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 26. P.Ws.4, 12 and 13 have already been introduced. P.Ws.6 and 10 were the Executive Engineers of the Agro Industries Corporation, Deogarh. P.Ws.2 and 3 were also working as job rate contractors under the said office. Out of them P.W.2 was declared as hostile witness. P.Ws.1, 5, 8, 9 and 11 were seizure witnesses. P.W.7, who was the Managing Director of Agro Industries Corporation, Orissa accorded sanction for prosecution of the Appellant. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. However, documents marked Exts. 'A' to 'G' were relied upon by the Appellant. The learned trial Court relying mainly upon the evidence of P.W.4 and contents of voucher Ext. 16 held the Appellant guilty of commission of the offences under which he stands convicted. 5. In assailing the impugned Judgment and order it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that: (i) their being no evidence to the effect that the Appellant forged the voucher Ext. 16 by affixing P.Ws.4's signature on it, there is no basis for conviction of the Appellant u/s 467 of the I.P.C.; (ii) no charge for commission of offence u/s 471 I.P.C. having been framed against the Appellant, conviction of the Appellant thereunder is not sustainable; (iii) conviction of the Appellant u/s 477-A of the I.P.C. on the basis of charge framed on the ground that he had forged the voucher Ext. 16 and falsified the cash book of the office is not sustainable as there is no evidence that the Appellant had forged Ext. 16 and as the cash book of office was neither produced nor proved by the prosecution; and (iv) in the absence of unimpeachable evidence to establish that the voucher Ext.16 is a forged document and that the Appellant dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated Rs. 10007- by forging the voucher Ext.16, charge u/s 5(2) of the P.C. Act must fail. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the vigilance department conceded that in the absence of charge, the Appellant could not have been convicted u/s 471 of the I.P.C. However, it is contended that, admittedly the Appellant, being the Accountant-cum-Cashier of the office, had prepared the voucher Ext.16. In such circumstance, the learned trial Court rightly held on the basis of evidence of P.W.4 that the Appellant misappropriated Rs. 1000/- by showing false payment to P.W.4. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is pertinent to note the nature of offences for which the Appellant stands convicted. Section 467 of the I.P.C. provides for the punishment for the offence of 'forgery of valuable security, will, etc' As per Section 463 of the I.P.C, prior to amendment in the year 2000, whoever, makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 of the I.P.C, providing for the meaning of the expression 'making a false document', prior to amendment in the year 2000, inter alia, read (i) Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or xx xx xx xx xx xx A plain reading of Sections 463 and 464 of the I.P.C. goes to show that the two essential elements of forgery contemplated u/s 463 of the I.P.C. are : (i) the making of a false document or part of it, and (ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section. The accused must have made a false document or a part of such document, in the absence of which he cannot be held guilty under this Section. When it is not proved that the accused affixed the false signature or thumb-impression, he cannot be held guilty u/s 464 of the I.P.C. for which what is essential is that the accused must make document with the intention of making it to be believed that it was signed by or by the authority of someone else, while he knows that it was not so made or authorized by that person. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the Appellant also cited the decision in Panchanan Maity Vs. The State and Another, wherein it has been held that a person to be guilty of forgery under the first clause of Section 464 of the I.P.C. must make a false document or part of a false document and not merely cause it to be made. 8. The State and Another, wherein it has been held that a person to be guilty of forgery under the first clause of Section 464 of the I.P.C. must make a false document or part of a false document and not merely cause it to be made. 8. Section 477-A providing for punishment for the offence of 'falsification of accounts' reads: Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully and within 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 entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular form or in, any such book, paper writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Thus, it is clear that one of the essential ingredients of offence u/s 477-A of the I.P.C. is that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account. 9. Charges u/s 5(2) of the P.C. Act was also framed against the Appellant on the accusation that he "misappropriated or otherwise converted to his use", and "by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant" obtained for himself pecuniary advantage Rs. 10007- by 'forging' the voucher Ext.16, and 'falsifying' accounts. 10. The Appellant was never charged for the commission of offence u/s 471 of the I.P.C. which, during the relevant period, provided for punishment for commission of offence of 'using as genuine a forged document' and read: Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. 11. Accusation against the Appellant is that he misappropriated Rs. 1000/- by showing the same to have been paid as advance to P.W.4 under voucher Ext.16. 11. Accusation against the Appellant is that he misappropriated Rs. 1000/- by showing the same to have been paid as advance to P.W.4 under voucher Ext.16. It is alleged that the Appellant forged signature marked Ext.X-5, purported to be of P.W.4, on the said voucher No. 581 dated 29.6.1981. In course of investigation report of the Handwriting Expert Ext.G was obtained from which it appears that the signature Ext.X-5 is not in the handwriting of the Appellant or of P.W.4. Therefore, in view of statutory provisions and legal principles referred to above there is no basis to allege that the Appellant had forged the signature Ext.X-5. In such circumstances, there is no material to sustain the charge u/s 467 IPC framed against the Appellant. The prosecution has not produced or proved the Cash Book alleged to have been falsified by the Appellant. Therefore, their is also no scope to hold the Appellant guilty of commission of offence u/s 477-A of the IPC. For such reasons, and as has been pointed out above, in the absence of framing of charge u/s 477 of the I.P.C, conviction of the Appellant thereunder also is rendered vulnerable. 12. The prosecution has failed to establish that the Appellant had forged the voucher Ext.16. In order to establish that the Appellant misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1000/- due to P.W.4, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 only. Therefore, it is necessary to make an appraisal of nature of evidence of P.W.4. At the outset, it may be pointed out that in course of vigilance enquiry PW.4 is stated to have alleged the he had not received payments of Rs. 14,100/- as shown to have been paid to him under as many as 12 vouchers including Ext.16. However, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant alleging non-payment of amount shown to have been paid under voucher Ext.16 only. Such being the nature of allegation initially made by P.W.4 and the result of investigation, evidence of P.W.4 requires close scrutiny. No doubt P.W.4 disowned the signature of Ext.X-5 of on Ext.16 and also from the report of Handwriting Expert Ext.G it appears that Ext.X-5 is not the signature of P.W.4. However, P.W.4 himself in course of his cross-examination admitted that his father and brother used to sign in his name in different applications. No doubt P.W.4 disowned the signature of Ext.X-5 of on Ext.16 and also from the report of Handwriting Expert Ext.G it appears that Ext.X-5 is not the signature of P.W.4. However, P.W.4 himself in course of his cross-examination admitted that his father and brother used to sign in his name in different applications. Though P.W.4 stated that he had not submitted final bill, he was constrained "to admit that Ext.A submitted by him on 3.8.81 is-a final bill. In case the Appellant was paid less amount than what was due to him on the final bill Ext.A, he should have brought such non-payment to; the notice of the Executive Engineers or the Managing Director. However, neither P.Ws. 6 and 9 nor P.W.7 deposed that P.W.4 had ever made any complaint. P.W.4's assertions that he had given written complaint to the Executive Engineer regarding non-receipt of Rs. 14,100/- from the Appellant, and that copies of such complaint was shown to the Investigating Officer were not supported by the Executive Engineers and the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 testified in course of his cross-examination that he used to maintain account book wherein he noted receipt of payments. He also testified to have shown his account" book to the Investigating Officer. Said account book was withheld from Court. On the contrary, the Executive Engineer P.W.6 testified that he satisfied from the vouchers that P.W.4 received payments and that P.W.4 did not make-any complaint before him at the time of submission of final bill Ext.A. Apart from these circumstances, there is another circumstance which renders the prosecution case suspicious, P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer P.W.12 is his uncle. P.W.12 admitted in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer from whom he took charge of investigation had given a report in the diary for submitting final report in the case. It is also pertinent to note that. P.W. 12 contradicted P.W.4 by saying that he is not his uncle. Therefore, P.W.4 is not found to be a reliable witness so that his evidence can be accepted without corroboration. There is no other evidence indicating that the Appellant misappropriated s or converted to his own use or obtained for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1000/- due to P.W.4 by forging and falsifying the voucher and accounts including the cash book. 13. There is no other evidence indicating that the Appellant misappropriated s or converted to his own use or obtained for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1000/- due to P.W.4 by forging and falsifying the voucher and accounts including the cash book. 13. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge for commission of any of the offences under which he stands convicted. Therefore, the impugned. Judgment and order are not sustainable in law and accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Final Result : Allowed