Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioner who is the 2nd Accused has come forward with this Revision Petition challenging his conviction and sentence imposed on him by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai convicting the Petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 471 r/w 465, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo five weeks’ Rigorous Imprisonment for each of the offences. On Appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in CA. No.85/1991 by the order dated 07.07.2003 reduced the sentence to six months’ Rigorous Imprisonment and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the present Revision has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner. 2. here are 2 Accused in this case and both of them were convicted by the Trial C Court and as against the conviction and sentence, the first Accused has preferred a separate Appeal and the Appeal has been allowed and the first Accused was acquitted. The Appeal preferred by the revision Petitioner/A2 was dismissed with the modification of sentence alone, as stated above. 3. The background facts of the case in a nut shell are hereunder: (a) P.W.1 was working as Joint Director of the Employment Exchange. Both P.W.2 and A2/Revision Petitioner have registered their names in the Employment Exchange. The name of P.W.2 is A. Kothandan whereas the name of the Revision Petitioner is M. Kothandam. A2 got a job as Peon in Central Telegraph Office as sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As a result, P.W.2 has given a report-Ex.P.1, to P.W.1 that he has not obtained any job but another person in his name was employed as Peon in the Central Telegraph Office. P.W.1 has stated that he went to the Central Telegraph Office and verified the Employment Exchange Identity Card of A2 and the Signature of A2 is found to be different from the signature found in Form I. Ex.P.2 is the Identity Card given by the Employment Exchange to A2. Thereafter, P.W.1 has given a report to P.W.9, the Inspector of Police who received the report, Ex.P.4 from P.W.1 and registered a case. P.W.10 took up further investigation and examined the witnesses. He seized Ex.P.5-Employment Exchange Identity card of P.W.2 and Ex.P.9-Employmentorder of A2. Thereafter, P.W.1 has given a report to P.W.9, the Inspector of Police who received the report, Ex.P.4 from P.W.1 and registered a case. P.W.10 took up further investigation and examined the witnesses. He seized Ex.P.5-Employment Exchange Identity card of P.W.2 and Ex.P.9-Employmentorder of A2. (b) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police had taken the specimen signature from the Accused and sent the same to P.W.8-Handwriting Expert for his opinion. P.W.8, on verification of the specimen signature with the signatures in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5, has given a report, Ex.P.13. After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed a charge-sheet against the Accused for the alleged offences as stated above. 4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and filed Exs.P.1 to 19. 5. When the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating material s appearing against them, A1 has stated that the signature found in Ex.P.2 is not his signature and A2 has stated that the signature found in Ex.P.2 is his signature and it is further stated by A2 that he has registered in the Employment Exchange in the year 1970 and renewed it periodically. Both the Accused have not examined any witnesses on their side. 6. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing as the Legal Aid Counsel for the revision Petitioner would vehemently contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing acceptable and admissible evidence. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence of forgery and it is contended that the main allegation of forgery is made only against A1 and as far as A2/Revision Petitioner is concerned, he is said to have used the forged document as genuine one and obtained job as Peon of Central Telegraph Office. It is pointed out that A1 has been acquitted by the Lower Appellate Court as he has preferred a separate Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner would further contend that both the Courts below have placed reliance only on the sole testimony of the Handwriting Expert, P.W.8 and there is absolutely no corroboration for the said evidence and thereby, committed serious error of law. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner would further contend that both the Courts below have placed reliance only on the sole testimony of the Handwriting Expert, P.W.8 and there is absolutely no corroboration for the said evidence and thereby, committed serious error of law. It is further contended that the prosecution has not produced any material particulars to substantiate the allegation that the Revision Petitioner has used the forged document as genuine as it is the admitted case of the prosecution that A2 has also registered his name in the same Employment Exchange as that of P.W.2. It is contended that A2 was working in the said office right from the year 1976 and no Complaint whatsoever is made against him except the instant case which was registered only in the year 1986. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] would submit that the prosecution mainly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.8. It is fairly submitted that the allegation of forgery is made against A1 and as far as A2/revision Petitioner is concerned, he is said to have used the said forged document as genuine and alleged to have obtained a job as Peon in Central Telegraph Office. It is submitted that the said Accused, as per the records, registered him name in the Employment Exchange as that of P.W.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] that A2 has already served right from the 1986 and thereafter, he retired. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward on either side and thoroughly perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. The fact remains that the main allegation of forgery is leveled only against A1 and as far as the Revision Petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, is concerned, he is alleged to have used the said forged document as genuine one and obtained job as Peon in Central Telegraph Office. It is seen that the prosecution solely placed reliance only on the evidence of P.W.8, the Handwriting Expert. It is pertinent to note that the opinion of the Expert is to the effect that the signature of A2 was not found in the alleged forged document. It is seen that the prosecution solely placed reliance only on the evidence of P.W.8, the Handwriting Expert. It is pertinent to note that the opinion of the Expert is to the effect that the signature of A2 was not found in the alleged forged document. The yet another important feature to be borne in mind of this Court is to the effect that even as per the statement of P.W.1 in his evidence, the signature resembled the handwriting of A1. It is relevant to note that admittedly, both P.W.2 and A2 have registered their names in the same Employment Exchange and the name of A2 was found in the Employment Exchange Register. The only dispute is to the effect that the signature of A2 contained in the identity Card of a2 UNDER Ex.P.2 is said to be a forged one. P.W.2, on the other hand, claimed that Ex.P.5-Identity card belongs to him. It is seen that the Lower Appellate Court has acquitted A1 and as such, this Court has no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove as tow ho has forged the document. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, the prosecution also not able to produce any other material documents to substantiate its contention that the Identity Card, Ex.P.2 is not a genuine one. The only piece of material placed reliance by the Courts below is to the effect that of the evidence of P.W.8. 10. It is well settled that the evidence of P.W.8 is only to be considered as an Expert Opinion and for that, there should be some corresponding materials to be placed by the prosecution to substantiate its case. It is also well settled that the opinion of the expert is not binding on the Court and the same can be taken into consideration with the other corroborative materials. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is most unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.8 alone in the absence of any further corroboration to the opinion of the expert. The Courts below have simply overlooked this important aspect and thereby committed an error of law. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is most unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.8 alone in the absence of any further corroboration to the opinion of the expert. The Courts below have simply overlooked this important aspect and thereby committed an error of law. 11. The yet another disturbing aspect in this case is that the Revision Petitioner/A2 has been employed as Peon as early as in the year 1976 and the Complaint was given only in the year 1986 and such an inordinate delay is also fatal to the prosecution case and as such, the impugned Judgment of conviction is unsustainable. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.456/1986 dated 30.05.1991 as confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A. No.85/1991 dated 07.07.2003 are set aside. 13. Before parting with the matter, this Court place it on record the commendable services rendered by Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing as Legal Aid Counsel. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel is entitled to get a remuneration of Rs.2,500/- [Rupees Two thousand five hundred only] from the State Legal Aid Services Authority, High Court, Chennai.