JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — The petitioners in both the revisions assail the judgment dated 13.6.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1996 whereby the learned Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar has confirmed the judgment and order dated 14.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No. 25 of 1998 convicting them under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468/471 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for five months for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C. , to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and further to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. Accused-Lalsingh Patel (petitioner in CRLREV No.605 of 2001) is further convicted under Section 419 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for. The sentences are to run concurrently. 2.The case of the prosecution, relevant for the present purpose is that Shri S.P. Satapathy (petitioner in CRLREV No.365 of 2001) was the Field Officer and Shri K.C. Pattnaik, was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Nawapada Branch during the period from January, 1987 to April, 1987. The duties of Shri S.P. Satapathy, as the Field Officer were to make pre-sanction survey and to prepare appraisal opinion reports in respect of borrowers and guarantors and to ensure proper documentation for sanction of loan and also to recommend for sanction of loan. The duty of Shri K.C. Patnaik was to sanction loan on the recommendation of the Field Officer - Shri Satpathy after examining proper documentation and observing other formalities on being satisfied about the bona fides of the loanees and guarantors before sanctioning the loan. Shri K.C. Patnaik sanctioned cash credit loan up to Rs.8000/- in favour of a loanee-Lalsingh Majhi on the recommendation of Shri S.P. Satpathy, the Field Officer. But not only the said loanee is a fictitious person, but also the loan application in his name is completely blank and it does not contain either the signature or the L.T.I. of Lalsingh Majhi. But not only the said loanee is a fictitious person, but also the loan application in his name is completely blank and it does not contain either the signature or the L.T.I. of Lalsingh Majhi. All other loan documents in respect of the said loanee were also incomplete. Wherever in the loan documents there are L.T.Is. stated to be of Lalsingh Majhi, actually those are the L.T.Is. of Shri Lalsingh Patel. But Shri Satpathy, the Field Officer has certified all those L.T.Is. to be of Lalsingh Majhi. Shri Lalu Rawat stands as guarantor for the aforesaid loanee signing in all the loan documents. The Field Officer recommended for the loan in favour of the said fictitious loanee and Shri K.C. Patnaik sanctioned cash credit loan up to the limit of Rs.8000/- in favour of the said loanee on the basis of the aforesaid incomplete loan application and documents. Subsequently, when Shri Satpathy, the Field Officer was in charge of the Branch Manager of Nawapada Branch of the State Bank of India, he authenticated the limit in respect of Rs.10,000/- and passed a voucher in respect of the said amount of Rs.10,000/- by allowing over-drawl of Rs.2000/-. 3.Charges were framed against all the accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. 4.The plea of the accused persons is complete denial. The specific plea of accused S.P. Satpathy in respect of the accusation, in brief, as per his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was acting as the Field Officer during the aforesaid time. Lalsingh Majhi, son of Dhaneswar Majhi belongs to village Kurumpuri and does not belong to village Tanwat. Said Lalsingh Majhi is actually the loanee in respect of the questioned loan account, who had obtained no due certificates from other banks and loan of Rs.10,000/- was disbursed in his favour in which Lalu Rawat, who was a previous loanee of that bank, stood as a guarantor and identified the said loanee Lalsingh Majhi. The specific plea of accused Lalsingh Patel is that there is no person, namely, Lalsingh Majhi, son of Dhaneswar Majhi either in village Kurumpuri or in village Tanwat and he denies about his involvement in the said loan transaction in favour of Lalsingh Majhi. The specific plea of accused Lalsingh Patel is that there is no person, namely, Lalsingh Majhi, son of Dhaneswar Majhi either in village Kurumpuri or in village Tanwat and he denies about his involvement in the said loan transaction in favour of Lalsingh Majhi. 5.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents including the report of the handwriting expert. Defence has examined none but exhibited 6 documents. 6.The learned trial Judge who tried the case convicted the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468/471 IPC and further convicted petitioner-Lalsingh Patel under Section 419 IPC and acquitted K.C. Patnaik and Lalu Rawat of the above charges. He sentenced the accused-petitioners to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for five months for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. He further sentenced Lalsingh Patel to undergo R.I. for two years only for the offence under Section 419 I.P.C. Against the judgment and order of the trial Court, petitioners preferred appeal before the Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar which was registered as CRLA No.12 of 1996. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 13.06.2001 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present revisions. 7.The order of conviction is based only on the evidence of P.W.7-Sasadev Thakur, the Handwriting Expert (P.W.10), Ext. 35-the cash register and Exts. 47 and 49-the opinions. P.W.7-Sashadev Thakur in cross-examination at para-8 admitted that the documents and the writing which had been proved were not exhibited nor written or signed in his presence. This witness had no personal knowledge about the transaction. One P.Sai the then Cashier had disbursed the cash as revealed from the cash register (Ext. 35). The said P. Sai, the Cashier has not been examined in this case. The relevant entries in the cash register regarding payment to the loanee are in the hand of P. Sai, the Cashier. This witness had no personal knowledge about the transaction. One P.Sai the then Cashier had disbursed the cash as revealed from the cash register (Ext. 35). The said P. Sai, the Cashier has not been examined in this case. The relevant entries in the cash register regarding payment to the loanee are in the hand of P. Sai, the Cashier. P.W.10, the handwriting expert has proved Exts. 47 and 49. The opinions relate to the document sent under Exts. 45, 46 and 48. The Investigating Officer does not say anything about the documents which were sent under Exts. 45, 46 and 48. He, in his evidence, has stated that Ext. 45 is the forwarding report of the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar accompanying list of questioned documents, specimen writing, etc. in two sheets. Ext. 46 is another forwarding letter accompanying the list of questioned writings, specimen writings and questionnaire for opinion. He examined the questions and writings carefully and thoroughly and gave his opinion under Ext. 47. He had also signed the opinion. Further documents consisting of questioned writings, signatures, specimen writings, and signatures were received in his office along with a forwarding letter which was marked as Ext. 48. After examining the same, he prepared the report and sent the same under Ext. 49. In paragraph-8 of his cross-examination, P.W.10 admitted that the date of examination and opinion are not mentioned in Exts. 47, 49, and 50. He also proved the letter dated 22.6.1988 (Ext. D). In the said Ext.D, it was written by him that it was not possible to give opinion on the documents supplied and also requested the C.B.I. authority to supply further writings of Mr. S.P. Satpathy. 8.P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police (CBI, Bhubaneswar) who investigated the matter and drew up the F.I.R. under Ext. 61. During investigation, he had made local verification and was satisfied that account holders-Lalsingh Majhi was a fictitious person and he prepared the memorandum vide Ext. 4 and proved the same under Ext. 4/3. In order to establish the identity of Shri Majhi, he sent notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. vide Exts. 1 to 3 which were returned undelivered with an endorsement that no such person was available in the address. 4 and proved the same under Ext. 4/3. In order to establish the identity of Shri Majhi, he sent notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. vide Exts. 1 to 3 which were returned undelivered with an endorsement that no such person was available in the address. He had also sent notices to the loanee through the constable of C.B.I. and ultimately filed charge sheet under Section 120-B/420/467/471/468, I.P.C. The Investigating Officer is silent as to what documents he had sent to P.W.10 under Exts. 45, 46 and 48. Exts. 45, 46 and 48 have been proved by P.W.10 but not by others, i.e., the I.O. (P.W.12). He has not whispered a single word about sending of documents under Exts. 45, 46 and 48. With regard to return of service of notice sent in the names of Lalsingh Majhi, son of Dhaneswar Majhi of village Kurumpuri and Dhanur Majhi of village Tanwat, the report under Ext. 4 was prepared by the I.O. in presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. P.W.1 is the constable of C.B.I. who prepared the report under Ext. 1. He deposed that he visited the said village and made enquiries in the village about the noticees and got information that the addressees were not the residents of that village and accordingly, he prepared the report under Ext. 1 and obtained signature of Ghasiram Nihal, Baliram Nihal and Jaharmal. In cross-examination, he admitted that both the villages were situated at a distance of 6 to 10 Kms. from Nuapada. He also admitted that the witnesses did not know the writing in Oriya but they signed in Hindi. He has also stated that he could not remember how many houses were there in both the villages in question and also the Bastis. He did not mention in the report that he searched for Lalsingh Majhi in both the villages. In the notice also father’s name and age of Dhaneswar Majhi was not mentioned. In such circumstances his evidence does not inspire confidence. It is also not prudent to place any reliance thereon. 9.P.W.2 is a resident of Village Tanwat and is also the Ward Member. He deposed that a Bank Field Officer and C.B.I Police enquired from him and other villagers about Lalsingh Majhi and he told them that there was no such person named Lalsingh Majhi in village Tanwat. C.B.I. Inspector prepared report under Ext. 4 on which he signed. 9.P.W.2 is a resident of Village Tanwat and is also the Ward Member. He deposed that a Bank Field Officer and C.B.I Police enquired from him and other villagers about Lalsingh Majhi and he told them that there was no such person named Lalsingh Majhi in village Tanwat. C.B.I. Inspector prepared report under Ext. 4 on which he signed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in his presence the voter list was not scrutinized. Field Officer signed the memorandum but no other member signed on the same and no other villagers were asked to sign on the same. 10.The main question that arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents under Exts. 35, 45, 46 and 48 relying on which the trial Court has convicted the petitioners. In (2011) 2 SCC 385 , Alamelu v. State it has been held that the author of the document should prove the same. But, in the instant case, by applying the above ratio it has been held that Exts. 45, 46 and 48 have not been proved by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the opinion given by the handwriting expert basing upon Exts. 45, 46 and 48 cannot be taken into consideration, as the same has no evidentiary value. It is admitted by P.W.7-Seshadev Thakur that the cash register was maintained by the Cashier, namely, P.Sai and he had the knowledge about the transaction, as he had disbursed the cash. This witness had no personal knowledge about the transaction. Therefore, the vital document, i.e., the cash register (Ext. 35) and the relevant entries therein have not been proved by the Cashier in absence of examination of P. Sai, who maintained the relevant register and made entries therein. This also amounts to suppression of material evidence which casts doubt on the prosecution. He has also admitted that the documents and the writings which have been prepared were not taken or signed in his presence. It has been held in Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar vr. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110 as follows:- “19. Now this is hardly a proper approach to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge. The onus of proof of the existence of every ingredient of the charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110 as follows:- “19. Now this is hardly a proper approach to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge. The onus of proof of the existence of every ingredient of the charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts. It was incumbent therefore on the State to bring out, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the number of labourers actually employed in carrying out the work was less than that stated in the summaries appended to the bills paid for by the government. It is true that the total number of labourers working on a single day has been put by the prosecution witnesses mentioned above at 200 or less, while according to the summaries appended to the bills it varied on an average from 370 to 756. But then is it safe to rely on the mere impression of the prosecution witnesses, testified too long after the work had been executed, about the actual number of labourers employed from time to time? The answer must obviously be in the negative and the justification for this answer is furnished by the variation in the number of labour employed from witness to witness. 20. xx xx xx. These irregularities no doubt furnish a circumstance giving rise to a strong suspicion in regard to the bona fides of the appellants in the matter of the execution of the work but suspicion, however strong, cannot be substitute for proof. And it is certainly not permissible to place the burden of proof of innocence on the person accused of a criminal charge.xx xx xx”. The apex Court in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another, (2003) 8 SCC-745 has held that mere production and making of a document as exhibit by the Court cant be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. 11.Taking an over all view, it is concluded that the prosecution has signally failed to discharge the burden of proof which heavily lies on it. There is no legal evidence which can convince this Court to hold the petitioners guilty of the offences alleged. 11.Taking an over all view, it is concluded that the prosecution has signally failed to discharge the burden of proof which heavily lies on it. There is no legal evidence which can convince this Court to hold the petitioners guilty of the offences alleged. 12.In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgments and orders of the Courts below are set aside and the Criminal Revisions are allowed. Revision allowed.