Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Kanhiyalal Choudhary (since deceased) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14. 10. 99 passed in Special Case No. 7/93 by the learned special Judge, Hoshangabad convicting the accused under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to RI for 2 years and pay fine of rs. 500/-, in default of depositing the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, convicting the appellant under Section 218,467,468 and 474 IPC to undergo RI for one year, RI for 3 years and fine of R s. 500/-, R. I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 3 years and fine of rs. 500/-,in case of failure to deposit the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the substantive sentences to be run concurrently, had filed this appeal. ( 2. ) IT is to be noted that during pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant kanhiyalal Choudhary expired, therefore, the legal representative of the deceased made an application seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. The application was allowed and Prakash Choudhary, son of the original appellant, was allowed to continue with the appeal. ( 3. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 4. 4. 1988 one Dhirendra manohar Agarwal (P. W. 1) made a complaint to the Office of Lokayukt that the complainant was required to meet the accused on 24. 3. 88, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- for making the assessment on the lower side with a threat that if the desired amount is not paid then the complainant would be taxed on the higher side. It was reported to the Lokayukt office that the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the demanded amount, therefore, he was lodging the complaint. On 4. 4. 88 panchnamas were prepared, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was taken from the complainant and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the same, particular panchnama was again prepared and thereafter the complainant was asked to go and meet the accused and after the accused had received the money, to give a particular indication to the trap party so that the accused was caught red-handed. On 4. 4. 1000/- was taken from the complainant and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the same, particular panchnama was again prepared and thereafter the complainant was asked to go and meet the accused and after the accused had received the money, to give a particular indication to the trap party so that the accused was caught red-handed. On 4. 4. 1988, the trap party and the complainant went to Itarsi station but the accused had not come, therefore, the entire trap programme fizzled out , however, the entire thing was re-done on 5. 4. 88. The complainant was required to go to the office of the accused and offer him money and make the gesture as suggested so that the accused was caught red-handed. According to the prosecution, the accused who had earlier demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/-, on 5. 4. 88 demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/-, on that, the complainant came out, asked the leader of the trap party that what he was required to do, the leader suggested him that the complainant may take sum of Rs. 1000/-from one of his colleague, mix the said notes with the marked notes and give the money to the accused. It was accordingly done and thereafter the indication was given, the trap party and the panch witnesses entered in the office of the accused, apprehended him, took-out the notes from the pocket immediately thereafter the hands of the accused were washed. Lo and behold, the water became pink. Immediately the shirts pocket was also washed and the water became pink. A receipt book bearing Book No. 1447 was also seized and certain other articles were also seized. The accused was taken in custody, however, he did not offer any explanation on the spot. After recording statements of the witnesses and preparation of the Panchnamas on the spot and thereafter on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The accused abjured the guilt, however, pleaded that he never demanded any money from the complainant, in fact, certain recovery proceedings were going-on against the Firm of the uncle of the complainant and as, the complainant wanted stay against the auction of the property, the complainant had offered sum of rs. 2000/- towards the recovery so that some breathing time was given. 2000/- towards the recovery so that some breathing time was given. It was also stated before the court that after receiving the money, the accused wanted to prepare the receipt but before he could complete the receipt, the said receipt book No. 1447 containing the receipt in dispute bearing serial no. 92, were seized. It was also submitted by him that, no case of the complainant was pending consideration for assessment and, therefore, there was no good reason for the accused to demand any money. ( 4. ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined the complainant as p. W. 1 and also examined Dr. Ravishankar Mishra (P. W. 2) as the shadow witness. The other witnesses including P. W. 6 S. B. Sidam, were also examined. Mr Sidam stated before the court that after seizure of the receipt book, the accused, on the pretext of giving the charge, received back the receipt book and thereafter made certain entries in the same. He thereafter made an application to the concerned authorities for giving custody of the receipt book. The accused examined his own-self as defence witness No. 2 and submitted before the court that at the time of the seizure of the receipt no. 92, the same was not blank. He, however, did not produce any further document in support of his case that certain proceedings regarding recovery of Rs. 61000/- and odds were pending consideration or no case pertaining to p. W. 1 Dhirendra the complainant was pending before the court. After hearing the parties, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below was unjustified in convicting the appellant under Section 218,467,468 and 474 of the IPC. It is submitted by him that all these sections would not apply to the facts of the case and the accused is entitled to be acquitted under the said charges. ( 6. ) SHRI Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that on a juxtapose reading of section 415,463 and 464 of the IPC, it would clearly appear that the accused had committed offence of forgery by preparing forged document and he also created the document to support a false claim, therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced. ( 7. ( 7. ) SECTION 218 of the IPC provides punishment to a Public Servant who frames incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Undisputedly, by making certain subsequent entries in the receipt No. 92 ( we presume the fact at this stage) the Public servant i. e the accused, was not trying to prevent or save any person from punishment nor was trying to save property from forfeiture. . Section 415 defines cheating. It reads as under :- "415. Cheating whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation. A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section. " Section 463 defines forgery while section 464 refers to making of false document. Section 463 and 464 reads as under :- "463. Forgery. 1[whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record 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. " "464. " "464. Making a false document 1[a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently- (a) Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations. " Section 467 provides punishment for forgery of valuable security. The valuable security has been defined in section 30 of the IPC. It reads as under: "30. Valuable security the words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that the lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. " ( 8. ) FROM the perusal of the definition, it would clearly appear that the words valuable security denotes a document which is or purports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right. " ( 8. ) FROM the perusal of the definition, it would clearly appear that the words valuable security denotes a document which is or purports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right. Undisputedly, a receipt relating to deposit would not be a valuable security, however, a receipt would ordinarily be a document as defined in Section 29 of the IPC. ( 9. ) SECTION 467 IPC while providing punishment for forgery of the valuable security also provides punishment for forgery of any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money. Once it is held that the document in dispute is a receipt then section 467 IPC would apply with full force. ( 10. ) THE question before us is whether the accused forged the receipt or was in the process of committing forgery or was making an attempt to forge the document. However, this question would be dependent upon a finding to be recorded by us into the innocence or guilt of the accused. ( 11. ) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no case pertaining to the complainant Dhirendra Agarwal was pending before him and the only case was relating to the uncle of the complainant. Strong reliance was placed upon some proceedings relating to recovery etc. Unfortunately, the accused who examined his own-self, did not summon or produce the said file relating to recovery of Rs. 61,000 and odds. It is to be noted that the accused was also relying upon Ex. P/17. Ex. P/17 is the assessment order of m/s D. M. Agarwal, Itarsi. It contains the order of assessment but, it is to be noted that upto the date of seizure accused Kanhaiyalal Choudhary had not affixed his signatures on the said file. The accused had not offered any explanation that if he had passed an order on 23. 12. 87 then why upto the date of seizure he had not affixed his signatures on the said assessment order. This conduct of the accused would certainly give a strong foothold to the prosecution to submit that the accused was demanding illegal gratification for passing an order in favour of the accused. 12. 87 then why upto the date of seizure he had not affixed his signatures on the said assessment order. This conduct of the accused would certainly give a strong foothold to the prosecution to submit that the accused was demanding illegal gratification for passing an order in favour of the accused. It is also to be noted that the accused had not filed any other assessment record to show that no other assessment was pending consideration. ( 12. ) IT was also submitted that if the accused had demanded the money then he was required to go to Itarsi on 4. 4. 88 and as he did not go to Itarsi, this court should hold that the accused never made any demand. The fact that accused did not go to station or Itarsi, would not make much difference because it is nobodys case that the amount was paid or offered to the accused on 4. 4. 88, in fact, the amount was offered on 5. 4. 88. ( 13. ) THE submission that the person from whom additional amount of rs. 1,000/- was taken has not been examined, in our opinion, would not cut any ice in favour of the accused in view of the positive evidence of P. W. 1 dhirendra and P. W. 2 Dr. Ravishankar Mishra the shadow witness and, in view of the fact that the hands and the shirts pocket became pink on washing. In any case, the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 2000/- and recovery of the same from the accused should not detain this court unnecessarily as the accused has accepted the fact. The explanation offered by him only is that he had received sum of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant in relation to the recovery proceedings. If that was so, it was extra burden upon the accused to prove before the court by producing the file pertaining to recovery proceedings. It cannot be allowed to be argued that the burden was upon the prosecution to call the said file relating to the recovery. The prosecution never asserted that the amount was paid in the recovery proceedings. If this was the defence of the accused then the accused was required to prove his case. It cannot be allowed to be argued that the burden was upon the prosecution to call the said file relating to the recovery. The prosecution never asserted that the amount was paid in the recovery proceedings. If this was the defence of the accused then the accused was required to prove his case. The burden may not be so heavy upon the accused and, if a probability shown by the accused and possibility of dent to the prosecution case is created then certainly the accused would be entitled to all the benefits but unfortunately in the present case, for the reasons known to the accused, despite raising the defence plea, he did not call for the records. ( 14. ) SO far as forging the receipt is concerned, it is to be noted that on the spot the receipt book No. 1447 was seized. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have clearly stated that at the time of the seizure, receipt No. 92 was absolutely blank. P. W. 6 Mr Sidam further stated before the court that when the charge was asked for, the accused demanded the receipt book for giving the complete charge, however, when the receipt book was returned, it had some entries in it. Mr Sidam has also said that when the receipt No. 92 in the receipt book No. 1447 was given to the accused it was blank. This statement of the witness that the receipt was blank at the time of seizure and had certain writing when it was returned back by the accused would clearly show that the accused was trying to create a defence by forging the receipt to show the payment. ( 15. ) THE prosecution, in our considered opinion, has proved the demand, preparation of the panchnama, offer of the money, acceptance by the accused, seizure of the marked and unmarked currency notes from the accused and forgery in the receipt book. ( 16. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt for conviction of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused is acquitted for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 218. The accused is acquitted for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 218. His conviction under Section 467 and 474 is maintained but his conviction under Section 468 is set aside. ( 17. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we do not think present to be a fit case for interference in the quantum of jail sentence/fine amount. Except for the modification referred to above and acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Section 218 and 468, the appeal is dismissed.