JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—The instant appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 28.3.1980 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, (in capacity of Special Judge), Kanpur, in Special Trial No. 7/M of 1978. Two accused namely Deo Narain and Jagdish Chandra Saxena were sent up for trial under Sections 120-B, 170, 466, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accused Jagdish Chandra Saxena was given a clear acquittal whereas present appellant Deo Narain was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 420 I.P.C., one year R.I. under Section 471 I.P.C and one year R.I. under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo four months R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution case, accused Deo Narain was employed as Amin in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. He obtained a sum of Rs.1000/- from complainant Sri Ahmad Husain, claiming himself to be an Inspector of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The complainant owned a house No. 130/567-A Bagahi Chandri, Kanpur, which was acquired by Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. He tried for allotment of a plot, where met the accused Deo Narain. Accused Deo Narain told him that he would get a plot allotted to him. A letter dated 15.5.1970 was received by complainant on 26.5.1970. Accused Deo Narain had earlier asked him to come in the morning of 26.5.1970 and told him that he will get another letter issued to him in the evening. Accused Deo Narain took a sum of Rs.1000/- from complainant at the residence of accused Jagdish Chandra Saxena and obtained his signatures on a register. The letter in question had required him to deposit a sum of 1800/- on 27.5.1970. The complainant met Sri Syed Yaseen, Corporator, requesting him for extension of time to deposit Rs.800/-. Sri Syed Yaseen, went to the office of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and found the letter received by complainant was forged and fictitious. The complainant thereupon moved an application on 28.5.1970 to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Kanpur, which is Ext. Ka-6. The matter was inquired into by Vigilance Officer of Nagar Mahapalika and later on investigation was handed over to Crime Branch C.I.D. Sri Radhey Shyam Singh, Insepctor C.B. C.I.D. submitted charge-sheet after investigation. 3. The complainant thereupon moved an application on 28.5.1970 to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Kanpur, which is Ext. Ka-6. The matter was inquired into by Vigilance Officer of Nagar Mahapalika and later on investigation was handed over to Crime Branch C.I.D. Sri Radhey Shyam Singh, Insepctor C.B. C.I.D. submitted charge-sheet after investigation. 3. Appellant Deo Narain denied allegations made against him and claimed that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity with his landlords who were related to Sri Shukla, Inspector, C.I.D. 4. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined PW-1 Sri Syed Mohammad Yaseen, PW-2 Sri Ahmad Husain, PW-3 Sri Devi Prasad, PW-4 Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh, PW-5 Sri Raheem Bux @ Bankey, PW-6 Sri Murari Lal Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police C.B. C.I.D., PW-7 Navrang Singh Inspector C.I.D., PW-8 Sri Shambhu Nath Tandon and PW-9 Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Government Handwriting Expert. Sri R.D. Goswami CW-1 Typist, Nazul Department, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, was examined as Court witness. 5. The counsel for appellant has argued that the fact of preparing fictitious letter is not substantiated since letter and other papers alleged to have been forged by appellant are typed and anyone can type it unless and until same is established by prosecution. 6. Next submission is that Raheem Bux @ Bankey PW-5 in whose presence, money is alleged to have been handed over to appellant by complainant, has been declared hostile. Thus it is a conviction without any evidence and not sustainable in law. 7. Learned A.G.A. has disputed each and every arguments advanced on behalf of appellant. He has laid great emphasis on Exts. Ka-9-A and 10, which are memo of Pralekh Pariksha and report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. Lucknow. 8. After hearing counsels for respective parties at length and also examining documentary evidence on record, it appears that report of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. Lucknow, dated 6.2.1980 Ext. Ka-10, has not been challenged by appellant’s counsel. Conclusion is that there is no difference in the individual characteristic of the disputed sample of typing matter, combination and similarity is sufficient to form a definite opinion, therefore, cumulative effect of forensic expert is a pointer towards the fact that appellant did try to forge the documents and extract certain money. 9. Conclusion is that there is no difference in the individual characteristic of the disputed sample of typing matter, combination and similarity is sufficient to form a definite opinion, therefore, cumulative effect of forensic expert is a pointer towards the fact that appellant did try to forge the documents and extract certain money. 9. However, it is also true that it is not a case where appellant was arrested accepting illegal gratification to give some assistance in discharge of duties in his official capacity. Admittedly, he is Amin and not a person responsible to get the land allotted. He only cheated the complainant to make him believe that he can be instrumental in getting the land allotted and extracted money from him. He made complainant to believe that correspondence is from Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, relating to the land, which the complainant expected to be allotted in his favour. 10. The counsel for appellant has been successfully able to establish that conviction under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is uncalled for. No doubt, he extracted money not as illegal gratification to do an act in discharge of duty or assist him to get an illegal work done; but making him to believe that money is being given to him to be deposited in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, in lieu of allotment of land. Therefore, offence of cheating is squarely made out. In view of report of Forensic Science Laboratory, letter was fabricated and fictitious. Conviction under Sections 420 and 471, I.P.C. is liable to be maintained. 11. It is brought to my notice that appellant had remained in jail for a period of two months. He is in jail after non-bailable warrant was issued by this Court for his non-appearance since last about fifteen days. In the circumstances, appellant has already been in jail for more than two and half months, therefore, sentence already undergone as well as fine of Rs.2000/- will suffice and meet the ends of justice. Sentence is reduced from one year to the period already undergone. Conviction and sentence under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is set at naught. The instant appeal is partly allowed.