Judgment ( 1. ) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08-04-03 passed by 18th Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Jabalpur in civil Suit No. 23-B/02, whereby learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case, in short, are that the plaintiff-Life Insurance Corporation of India had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 17,881. 91 np against Chhedilal Awasthi (defendant No. 1), State Bank of India, Medical College branch, Jabalpur (defendant No. 2) and Punjab National Bank, satna (defendant No. 3) together with their respected Head office as defendant No. 4 and 5, on the ground that one premshankar Baijal C/o M/s Satna Stones and Lime company Ltd. , Satna, had taken a policy bearing no. 79332135 for Rs. 10,000/- dated 22nd June, 1949. The date of maturity of said policy was 27 th May, 1974. The said policy matured and a sum of Rs. 14,038. 80 np was payable to the said Premshankar Baijal, Satna under the said policy. Accordingly, a account payee cheque only was drawn on defendant No. 3, issued in favour of said policy holder-Premshankar Baijal, being maturity proceeds of Life Insurance policy No. 79332135. The cheque for Rs. 14038. 8 np was received in the dispatch section of plaintiffs office on 27th may, 1974 by one B. G. Joshi, a peon. His signature appears on Dak Register of Accounts Department, Banking Section on page No. 32. On 01-06-1974, the said cheque was sent for dispatch to Premshankar Baijal under registered envelop. Registered letter addressed to Premshankar Baijal was dispatched on 01-06- 1974 by one A. K. Patankar, peon of dispatch Section. On 20th June, 1974 the said envelop was returned undelivered but the cheque was found missing. On the envelop of this registered letter where the address of party is noted only the word satna has been scored out and below that bombai -28 has been substituted. ( 3. ) ON 30th July, 1974, the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 3 to stop the payment of cheque but the later replied that the cheque has also been encashed on 7 th June 1974, through defendant No. 2. Meanwhile, Premshankar baijal, the original claimant, pressed for payment. Thereupon its was found that somebody has personated as premshankar Baijal and has received the amount. Meanwhile, Premshankar baijal, the original claimant, pressed for payment. Thereupon its was found that somebody has personated as premshankar Baijal and has received the amount. On 02-08-1974, defendant No. 3 intimated that the said cheque was presented through the State Bank of India, Medical College branch, Jabalpur in clearing with the stamp payees Account credited. Defendant No. 2 State Bank of India also intimated that on a person purporting to be Premshankar Baijal and alleged resident of Garha, Jabalpur had opened a Saving Bank account No. 2200 on 30-05-1974 with a part of amount of rs. 5/- and on 31-05-1974, the cheque in question was lodged in the said Bank to be credited to his account with an endorsement that said fictitious person who has represented himself to be Premshankar Baijal, resident of Garha had further deposited Rs. 10/- on 10-06-1974 and had withdrawn on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974 an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and rs. 9,000/- respectively. ( 4. ) ON 14-08-1974, FIR was lodged with the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. On investigation, it was found that defendant No. 1 has removed the cheque unauthorisedly, illegally and obtained payment thereof by opening a saving bank account with defendant No. 2 by personating as Premshankar Baijal. After investigation, offences under Sections 419, 379 and 468 of IPC was registered against the defendant No. 1 and challan was filed before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class, jabalpur. Despite notice to all, they failed to deposit the amount and hence, present suit. ( 5. ) IN para 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that defendant No. 2 is squarely responsible for making wrong payments and causing loss to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has called upon the defendant No. 2 to make loss good. ( 6. ) RESPONDENT No. 1/defendant No. 1 in his written statement inter alia, took a plea of denial of the aforesaid facts pleaded in the plaint. Appellant also initiated departmental enquiry against the respondent No. 1 and after departmental enquiry his services were terminated. Against which, he filed an appeal before the appellate Authority which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed. Against which, he filed a Writ Appeal which was also dismissed. ( 7. ) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, he challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed. Against which, he filed a Writ Appeal which was also dismissed. ( 7. ) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence decided the issue No. 1 to 6 in favour of the appellant and in respect of issue No. 7 has held that in view of the statement of R. K. Dubey, the then cashier/clerk of defendant No. 2 who in his statement has very categorically stated that there was no negligence in opening the account number No. 2200 in the fictitious name of premshankar Baijal and at the time of opening up of account, there was no provision to identify the signature of the account holder nor any introduction is necessary. Appellant has not filed any circular or guidelines issued by the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) to that effect and therefore, this issue was decided against the plaintiff by holding that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the rules in opening the account No. 2200 in the name of Premshankar baijal. The trial Court has further held that first respondent had come in the office on 31-05-1974 by one hour late and therefore, it was not possible for him to lodge the cheque on 31-05-1974. The trial Court after appreciating the statement of R. K. Dubey (DW-1), S. S. Titeja (PW-4) and Handwriting expert -Radhey Krishna Gupta (DW-2), held that DW-1 failed to identify that it is the defendant No. 1, who had opened the account with the respondent No. 1. It is also held that Ex-P/7, application for opening account, Ex-P/8 -declaration form, ex-P/10 - withdrawal form dated 14-06-1974, Ex-P/11-withdrawal form dated 17-06-1974, Ex-P/12, Ex-P/16 to Ex-P/17 which are discharge form indicate signature of real premshankar Baijal. Ex-P/30 to Ex-P/33 are photographs of enlarged signature. In absence of original documents, it can not be said that Ex-P/7, P/8, P/10 and P/11 appears fake signatures of Premshankar Baijal and all these disputed signatures were made by defendant No. 1 -C. L. Awasthy. Ex-P/30 to Ex-P/33 are photographs of enlarged signature. In absence of original documents, it can not be said that Ex-P/7, P/8, P/10 and P/11 appears fake signatures of Premshankar Baijal and all these disputed signatures were made by defendant No. 1 -C. L. Awasthy. It is also held by the learned trial Court that in absence of the above original documents, report of handwriting expert cannot be accepted nor it can be said that all the disputed signatures were made by defendant No. 1 -C. L. Awasthy which tallied with his admitted handwriting. With the above findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. ( 8. ) IT is clear from the pleadings of the parties that the moot question of fact which has to be decided in the suit is if defendant No. 1 forged the signature of Premshankar baijal to withdraw the amount from the State Bank of India. ( 9. ) LEARNED Sr. counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the pleadings of the parties and submitted that appellant has duly proved the fact regarding forgery of cheque by defendant No. 1 and findings recorded by the learned trial Court in para 25 to 41 are contrary to the evidence on record and admission made by DW-1, PW-4 and dw-2 (Radhakrishna Gupta) handwriting expert examined by defendant No. 2. ( 10. ) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. ( 11. ) FROM the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the appellant had issued a cross cheque (Ex. P/1), account payee only bearing No. PGG 512159 dated 27th May, 1974 for rs. 14,038. 80 of Punjab National Bank, Satna in favour of premshankar Baijal, the appellants account department (Banking Section) sent the said cheque along with covering letter, premium received and addressed the envelop to the dispatch section of its establishment department on 27th may, 1974 for being dispatched to Premshankar Baijal under registered cover at his Satna address. The said registered envelop was dispatched on 01-06-1974 vide registration no. A-30 from Life Insurance Corporation Post Office, jabalpur. Said registered envelop (Ex. P/3) was returned undelivered to Divisional Office, Jabalpur on 20-06-1974, relevant cheque for Rs. 14,038. 80 np was missing from the said envelop. The said registered envelop was dispatched on 01-06-1974 vide registration no. A-30 from Life Insurance Corporation Post Office, jabalpur. Said registered envelop (Ex. P/3) was returned undelivered to Divisional Office, Jabalpur on 20-06-1974, relevant cheque for Rs. 14,038. 80 np was missing from the said envelop. Similarly, envelop of address was also found tempered in asmuchas word satna was being scored out in its place bombai -20 was substituted. On 30th July, 1974, appellant issued the instructions to the respondent No. 3 to stop the payment of the said cheque. On 02-08-1974 (Ex. P/4) respondent No. 3 intimated the appellant that cheque in question had already been paid on 07-06-1974 and informed that said cheque was presented to them through state Bank of India, Medical College Branch, Jabalpur for clearing. Appellant called the said cheque through their satna Office on 08-08-1974 and learnt that cheque was lodged on State Bank of India, Medical College Branch, jabalpur in Saving Bank Account bearing No. 2200 by premshankar Baijal R/o Near Garha Police Station Jabalpur. Appellant further pursued the matter vide its letter to State bank of India on 10-08-1974 and 12-08-1974 and thereafter, lodged the complaint with Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and Police Station Garha, Jabalpur on 14-08-1974 (Ex. P/6 ). Police made an investigation in the matter and came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 -Chhedilal Awasthy unauthorisedly removed the said cheque in question from the dispatch section and opened a Saving Bank Account no. 2200 with State Bank of India and withdraw the proceed of the cheque in question. He was, therefore, arrested by the Police and crime No. 408/1974 was registered against him. ( 12. ) RAMKRISHNA Gupta (PW-1), Amarnath Kapoor (PW-2) and R. N. Kushwah (PW-3) in their statements proved all the documents including Ex-P/2, Ex-P/8, Ex-P/10, ex-P/11, Ex-P/12 and Ex-P/16 to Ex-P/17. R. K. Dubey, assistant Manager, State Bank of India, the then cashier/clerk of respondent No. 2 in his statement very categorically stated that the Saving Bank Account No. 2200 was opened by the respondent No. 1 in fictitious name of premshankar Baijal. This witness in his cross-examination had very categorically stated that the defendant No. 1 -Chhedilal awasthy who is present today, is the person who had opened the Saving Bank Account in the name of Premshankar baijal. This witness in his cross-examination had very categorically stated that the defendant No. 1 -Chhedilal awasthy who is present today, is the person who had opened the Saving Bank Account in the name of Premshankar baijal. This witness further in para 6 of his cross-examination has deposed that it is Chhedilal Awasthy who had operated the account and withdraw the amount from the account no. 2200 in the name of Premshankar Baijal. Ex-D/1 is the statement of account No. 2200. This witness was further cross-examined by R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant no. 1, on being cross-examination DW-1 in para 10 of his statement has further deposed that during the operation of saving bank account No. 2200, respondent No. 1-Chhedilal Awasthy was known by him as Premshankar baijal and every time when the amount was withdrawn he had seen this person who had taken the amount from the bank. S. S. Titeja (PW-4) handwriting expert has also filed his report vide Ex-P/46. This witness had examined the disputed signature of Premshankar Baijal on the cheque of rs. 14,038. 80 np dated 27-05-1974, specimen card, three page pay slip dated 30-05-1974, 13-05-1974 and 10-06-1974, two saving bank account withdrawal form dated 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974 and application for opening of saving bank account dated 30-05-1974 with the admitted signature of premshankar Baijal in policy discharge form Ex-P/12 to Ex-P/17 and gave his opinion that signature appended in Ex-P/7, Ex-P/8, Ex-P/10, Ex-P/11 to Ex-P/17 does not identify with original signature of Premshankar Baijal in Ex-P/12 to ex-P/17. This witness in paragraphs 4,5,6,7,8 and 10 of his statement has very categorically stated that fake signature identify with the admitted signature of defendant No. 1. In para 12 this witness further admitted that he submitted his report on the basis of photocopy of the original disputed document and original document is not on record. It is not disputed by the parties that the original documents are lying with the criminal case pending against the respondent No. 1. ( 13. ) RADHAKRISHNA Gupta (DW-2), handwriting expert of respondent No. 1 -Chhedilal Awasthy in para 14 of his statement very categorically stated that the disputed signature can be identified from the photocopy of the document. It is not disputed by the parties that the original documents are lying with the criminal case pending against the respondent No. 1. ( 13. ) RADHAKRISHNA Gupta (DW-2), handwriting expert of respondent No. 1 -Chhedilal Awasthy in para 14 of his statement very categorically stated that the disputed signature can be identified from the photocopy of the document. From the statement of PW-4 and DW-1 it can be very well held that it is the defendant No. 1 who has opened the saving bank account at Medical College, Branch, State bank of India, Jabalpur and deposited the cheque of rs. 14,038. 80 np. The said cheque was cleared from the punjab National Bank, Satna and Rs. 14,038. 80 np deposited in the saving account No. 2200 which was operated by the defendant No. 1 and it is he, who has withdrawn Rs. 5,000/-on 14-06-1974 and Rs. 9,000/- on 17-06-1974. From the above, it is duly proved that the respondent No. 1 forged the signature of Premshankar Baijal and withdrew the amount of Rs. 14038. 80 np by opening the account in the name of premshankar Baijal vide saving bank account No. 2200. Appellant - Life Insurance Corporation vide letter dated 02-08-1974 issued by the Punjab National Bank came to know for the first time that disputed cheque was presented through state Bank of India for clearing. Appellant immediately on 07-08-1974 directed its Satna Branch Office to send pay cheque receipt received by them from Punjab National Bank, satna on 06-08-1974. Superintendent of Satna Branch Office sent the said cheque through special messenger under his letter dated 07-08-1974 by which, appellant came to know that cheque referred to above was lost with the State Bank of India, Medical College Branch, Jabalpur and thereafter, wrote a letter to defendants No. 2 and 3 Bank and their senior officers and thereafter lodged a complaint with the superintendent of Police on 14-08-1974 (Ex-D/6 ). DW-3 in his cross-examination deposed that he had worked as direct agent of Life Insurance Corporation branch for a period from 1963 to 01-09-1974. On 31-05-1974 he was working in the life Insurance Corporation, branch situated at Madanmahal, jabalpur. ( 14. ) AS per para 35 of the impugned judgment, it is not in dispute that on 31-05-1974, respondent No. 1 came one hour late, in his office. He was also on duty on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974. On 31-05-1974 he was working in the life Insurance Corporation, branch situated at Madanmahal, jabalpur. ( 14. ) AS per para 35 of the impugned judgment, it is not in dispute that on 31-05-1974, respondent No. 1 came one hour late, in his office. He was also on duty on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974. The distance of his branch where he was working and the defendant No. 2 Bank, is not very far and therefore, the finding of the trial Court that saving bank account No. 2200 was not opened by the defendant No. 1 is incorrect. On 13-05-1974 when the account was opened he came late in the office and on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974, the amount can be withdrawn from the said saving bank account during lunch time. There is no bar of withdrawing the amount, it can be withdrawn at any time during the bank working hours. In view of the specific admission made by the handwriting expert of defendant No. 1 that disputed signature can be examined from the photocopy of the document, findings of the trial Court in para 37 to 39 are contrary to the statement and admission made by DW-2. Defendant No. 1 was identified by the then cashier/clerk of the State Bank of India, Medical College Branch, Jabalpur as per para 14 of his statement and therefore, the finding that the respondent No. 1 has not operated the saving bank account No. 2200 is incorrect and contrary to the evidence on record. ( 15. ) FROM the statement of R. K. Dubey (DW-1), it is duly proved that it is the defendant No. 1 who had opened the saving bank account in the name of Premshankar Baijal and as per the statement of handwriting expert (PW-4) that signature on Ex-P/7, P/8, P/10, P/11, P/12 to P/17 appears to be signatures of Chhedilal Awasthy and it is he who opened the account in the name of Premshankar Baijal at State Bank of India, Medical College Branch, Jabalpur which is not very far away from his branch office where he was working and withdrew the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974 respectively. ( 16. ) IT is well settled that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not conclusive but is in the nature of opinion evidence. 5,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- on 14-06-1974 and 17-06-1974 respectively. ( 16. ) IT is well settled that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not conclusive but is in the nature of opinion evidence. It is, therefore, clear that conclusion can not be based entirely on the evidence of handwriting expert, there must be independent evidence or other cogent evidence. Court can act on the opinion of handwriting expert and in cases where reasons in the opinion were convincing, and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted. Here, in the present case, the opinion of the handwriting expert (Ex-P/14) is convincing and is also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and there is no bar that the opinion of the handwriting expert which is based on photocopy of the dispatch document can not be accepted. DW-2, handwriting expert of defendant No. 1 in para 14 of his statement has very categorically stated that the disputed signature can be identified from the photocopy of the document. Defendant No. 1 is also identified by the PW-4 the then cashier of State Bank of India, Medical College branch, Jabalpur. ( 17. ) IN view of the above, the trial Court has committed an error in not accepting the report of handwriting expert which is corroborated by other evidence also and supported by the independent evidence and other cogent evidence. ( 18. ) FOR the above mentioned reasons, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The suit of the appellant is decreed with interest only against the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 17,991. 91 np with cost and interest @ 9% p. a. till its realization through out. Counsels fee3,000/-, if pre-certified.