JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. By this Appeal filed under Section 27 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the PC Act.) read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called CrPC), the judgment and Order, dated 18.09.2003, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 3 (C)/2000, been challenged. By the impugned judgment and Order, the Learned Special Judge, Assam convicted the Appellant for offences under Sections420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after called IPC), under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced the Appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and top a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each counts, in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six month on each counts. It was ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, the Appellant has come up with this Appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Judge committed error by recording the conviction and the sentences without any substantive evidence against the Appellant. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: The Appellant Sri Hiteshwar Bora, while working as a Cable Splicer under the SDO, Cable, Jorhat, during the period from January, 1996 to March, 1996 committed forgery by falsely preparing 60 Nos. of vouchers in the names of various persons, who were shown to have been engaged as labourers and thus received an amount of Rs. 6155/- from Sri P.C. Phukan by preparing false bill and thus committed misappropriation in respect of the said amount causing wrongful loss to the Telecom department. An FIR being lodged by the SP/CBI, ACB, Guwahati, the RC Case No. 32(A)/96-SHG dated 30.09.1996 was registered and accordingly investigation into the matter was launched. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer seized some documents, examined the witnesses, got the questioned documents and the specimen signatures examined by the Handwriting Expert (P.W. 10). At the close of the investigation, the CBI submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 420, 468/465/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 4. At the close of the investigation, the CBI submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 420, 468/465/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 4. The learned Special Judge framed charges for the offences under Section 420, 468/465/471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the defence was a denial one. 5. In order to substantiate the allegations, brought against the accused person, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Assistant Government Examiner of Handwriting (P.W. 10). At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Denying the allegations made against him, the accused/Appellant declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Judge held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 420, 468//471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and convicted him for committing the said offences. Accordingly, the accused was awarded with the punishment as aforesaid. 6. Mr. P. Kataki, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce any substantive evidence against the Appellant and that the learned Trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the accused person relying on the opinion of the Handwriting Expert (P.W. 10). The Learned Counsel further submitted that the witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, stated nothing against the Appellant and as such, in the absence of any substantive direct or circumstantial evidence, the Learned Trial Judge committed gross illegality by recording the conviction on the basis of the opinion evidence of an Handwriting Expert. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel, for the Appellant, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Sashi Kr. Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kr. Banerjee reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 . 7. In reply to the said argument, advanced by the Learned defence Counsel, Mr. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel, for the Appellant, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Sashi Kr. Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kr. Banerjee reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 . 7. In reply to the said argument, advanced by the Learned defence Counsel, Mr. A.C. Buragohain, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent CBI, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the non-availability of any direct evidence, the learned Trial Judge committed no illegality by recording the conviction and the sentence relying on the evidence given by the Expert (P.W. 10). 8. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the Learned Counsels and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and Order, I feel it appropriate to, briefly, reproduce the evidence on record as follows: Mr. Jugal Hazarika, Accounts Officer of the Office of the General Manager, Telecom, Jorhat, deposing as P.W. 1, stated that he did not know the handwriting and signature of the accused as the latter did not worked under him. However, he stated that he knew the signature of Sri P.C. Phukan, SDE, Cable i.e. P.W. 2, under whom the Appellant had worked. In his cross-examination this witness stated that bills were verified after being processed and that the adjustment bills were sent along with the vouchers after verification. This witness stated nothing against the accused person. He stated about the procedure followed in the Office with regard to payment of the bills. Mr. P.C. Phukan, SDE, Cable, Jorhat Telecom, deposing as P.W. 2, stated that the Appellant worked under him end that he was acquainted with the signature and handwriting of the Appellant. He had exhibited the signatures made by the Appellant in the bills. He stated that, for executing the project works, the staff of the department used to engage temporary labourers and that payments were made by such staff. According to P.W. 2, the staff of the department submitted the bills alongwith vouchers submitted by the labourers. According to this witness, the Appellant also submitted bills towards the engagement of the labourers for executing the project work. He exhibited the said bills as Ext. Nos. 6 to 27 and the signatures of the Appellant thereon. According to P.W. 2, the staff of the department submitted the bills alongwith vouchers submitted by the labourers. According to this witness, the Appellant also submitted bills towards the engagement of the labourers for executing the project work. He exhibited the said bills as Ext. Nos. 6 to 27 and the signatures of the Appellant thereon. From the evidence of this witness, it spears that the staff of the department, including the Appellant were empowered to engage temporary majdoor and that they were required to submit bills with regard to payment made to the labourers. In his cross examination, the P.W. 2 stated that as per his direction, the Appellant had executed the work up to his satisfaction and that accordingly, the Appellant made payment to the labourers. He further stated that he did not know whether the Appellant had made the payment to the labourers or not. He also made it clear that none of the labourers made any complaint regarding non-payment of their dues by the Appellant. 9. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 2 indicates that the Appellant had duly executed the work to the satisfaction of the authority and that there were no complaint regarding nonpayment to any of the labourers. This witness did not state any thing incriminating against the Appellant to believe that the latter had committed any illegality or irregularity in executing the work. 10. Mr. Kuladhar Saikia, SDE, Jorhat District, deposing as P.W. No. 3 stated regarding execution of the works. He stated that no complaint was received from any of the labourers engaged by the Appellant. This witness also stated nothing against the Appellant. Mr. Bhavendranath Bordoloi, Office Assistant of the office of General Manager, Telecom, Jorhat deposing as P.W. 4 stated regarding sanction of fund towards the execution of works, undertaken by the department. From the evidence of P.W. 4 no incriminating material is found against the Appellant. 11. Mr. Prabhat Ch. Neog, who was the sanctioning authority for according sanctioning for prosecution, deposing as P.W. 5, stated that he had accorded sanction for prosecution against the Appellant. He stated nothing regarding forgery of documents and misappropriation of fund by the Appellant. Mr. Lakhi Ram Bora, a casual employee of the Telecom Jorhat, deposing as P.W. 6, stated that the Appellant was his brother and that during the relevant period, he received payment after putting his signature. He stated nothing regarding forgery of documents and misappropriation of fund by the Appellant. Mr. Lakhi Ram Bora, a casual employee of the Telecom Jorhat, deposing as P.W. 6, stated that the Appellant was his brother and that during the relevant period, he received payment after putting his signature. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. He denied the suggestion, put on behalf of the prosecution, that before the Investigating Officer, he had stated that he did not work under the Appellant and that he did not put his signature in the vouchers. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, he did not support the prosecution version. In his cross-examination, the said casual employee clearly stated that he received payment from the Appellant and put his signature. He also declined to have made any statement before the CBI. In tune with the evidence of P.W. 6, Mr. Bhaikan Borah, Anr. casual worker, deposing as P.W. 7, stated that he worked under the Appellant as labourer and that he had received payment from the Appellant. This witness was also cross examined by the prosecution after declaring him hostile. He denied the suggestion, put to him by the prosecution, that before the Investigating Officer, he stated that he did not put his signature in the vouchers. He also denied the suggestion that he did not work as labourer under the Appellant. Both the said two labourers, who appear to have been engaged by the Appellant, refused to support the prosecution version. 12. Mr. P. Sundararajan, who worked as Senior Accounts Officer, Telecom, deposing as P.W. 8, stated about the procedure in engaging casual labourer and making payment to them towards executing the works of the department. This witness also stated nothing against the Appellant. Mr. Luchan Kr. Bora, Junior Telecom Officer, Jorhat, was examined as P.W. 9. He stated regarding submission of the final bill and adjustment of the advance. This witness stated nothing incriminating against the Appellant. In his cross examination. P.W. 9 stated that though he visited the worksite of the Appellant he did not receive any complaint regarding non payment etc. 13. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it appears that none of the above mentioned witnesses supported the prosecution story to believe that the Appellant had forged any documents and misappropriated fund. In his cross examination. P.W. 9 stated that though he visited the worksite of the Appellant he did not receive any complaint regarding non payment etc. 13. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it appears that none of the above mentioned witnesses supported the prosecution story to believe that the Appellant had forged any documents and misappropriated fund. Rather, from the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, more particularly, from the evidence of P.W. 9, P.W. 2, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, it appears that Appellant had carried out the works properly and that no complaint/allegation was received against the Appellant. 14. In view of the above, I find not an iota of substantive evidence, direct or circumstantial evidence against the Appellant. 15. The questioned document, containing the signature of the engaged labourers and the specimen signatures of the Appellant were sent to the Examiner of the question documents. P.W. 10, who was the Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents stated that, after examining handwritings available in questioned documents as well as in the specimen signature, he formed the opinion that all the said documents were written by one and the same person. In the opinion of the said handwriting expert, the Appellant who gave the specimen signatures, was the maker of the questioned document i.e. the signatures of the bills, alleged to be submitted by the labourers. On the basis of the said evidence of the handwriting expert, the Learned Trial Judge concluded that the accused had committed the alleged offences of forgery and misappropriation of funds. 16. As discussed above, except the opinion evidence of the said handwriting expert, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the Appellant in support of the prosecution version that he had committed forgery and misappropriation of funds. 17. In the case of Sashi Kr. Banerjee (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while discussing the evidential value of the handwriting expert and his opinion observed: Besides it is necessary to observe that expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by substantial evidence. 18. The Learned Trial Judge, while recording the conviction, concluded that the evidence of Expert was supported by independent witness i.e. the P.W. 2. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by substantial evidence. 18. The Learned Trial Judge, while recording the conviction, concluded that the evidence of Expert was supported by independent witness i.e. the P.W. 2. As discussed above, the P.W. 2 nowhere supported the prosecution version that the Appellant had either forged the documents or misappropriated the fund. He clearly stated that the work was completed to his satisfaction and that no complaint was received from any of the labourers regarding non payment. None of the prosecution witnesses stated anything incriminating against the accused. 19. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Learned Trial Judge committed error by holding that the evidence of the Expert (P.W. 10) was supported by the independent witness (P.W. 2). The evidence on record reveals that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence lending corroboration to the opinion formed by the Expert P.W. 10. 20. There is no dispute that the evidence of tile Expert is nothing but an opinion formed on the basis of certain established principles. Such opinion cannot be substitute for substantial evidence and as such for want of corroboration from independent evidence, no conclusion regarding guilt of the accused can be made. 21. Relying on the decision, held in the Case of Anil Paul v. State of Tripura reported in 1998 (1) GLJ 40 : 1998 (1) GLT 190, the Learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of hostile witnesses. In the above referred case, it was held that the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be washed off altogether and that apart of the statements made by such witnesses, if found to be credit worthy without any legal bar, can be used if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Learned Trial Judge held that the evidences of P.W. 2 and P.W. 10 lent corroboration to believe that the accused had committed forgery in respect of 60 vouchers. Accordingly, the Learned Trial Judge concluded that the evidence of the hostile witnesses (P.W. 6 and P.W. 7) could not help the defence. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the said two witnesses (P.W. 6 and P.W. 7) reveals nothing incriminating against the Appellant. 22. Accordingly, the Learned Trial Judge concluded that the evidence of the hostile witnesses (P.W. 6 and P.W. 7) could not help the defence. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the said two witnesses (P.W. 6 and P.W. 7) reveals nothing incriminating against the Appellant. 22. In the case of Anil Paul, a Division Bench of this Court held that there is no legal bar to have conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench observed: Section 154 of the Evidence Act provides for hostile witnesses and it further provides that the evidence of hostile witness cannot be washed of altogether. The Court may after reading and considering the evidence as a whole, with due caution and care, accept in the light of other evidence on record, that apart of his statement this credit worthy. 23. From the above, it appears that the evidence of a hostile witnesses, if found credit worthy in the light of other evidence can be accepted with due caution and care. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 6 and 7, who were declared as hostile witnesses, it is found that none of them supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 7, while negating the prosecution version, stated that he did not make any statement before the CBI. P.W. 7 further denied to have made any statement against the Appellant. The statements, alleged to be made % them before the investigating officer, were put to them as suggestions, which they categorically denied. Such, statement, refused by the hostile witnesses can not be treated as substantive evidence. In view of the above, from the evidence of the P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 nothing incriminating could be found against the Appellant. Therefore, in view of absence of any other incriminating evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed error by relying on the testimony of the said hostile witnesses as well as the opinion of the hand writing expert (P.W. 10). 24. It is well settle law that in criminal trial the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the allegations brought against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. 24. It is well settle law that in criminal trial the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the allegations brought against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, in the absence of any substantial direct or circumstantial evidence against the Appellant, the opinion of the handwriting expert can not be the basis for holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences. In the light of the above discussed evidence it appears that the prosecution failed to examine the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Learned Trial Judge committed illegality by recording the conviction solely relying on the opinion of the handwriting expert. In the light of the above discussion, I find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. 25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and Order is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. 26. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Return the LCR. Appeal allowed.