JUDGMENT : Crl.RC.No. 1148 of 2004 is filed by A-1 in CC.No. 727 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. Whereas Crl.RC.No. 1149 of 2004 is filed by A-3 in the very same case. 2. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, convicted A-1 and A-3 for the offences under section 468, 471, 260 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each under each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and acquitted A-2 of all the offences. By the common judgment dated 05-7-2004, the II-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad, modified the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 3. Feeling aggrieved, A-1 and A-3 filed the above mentioned two criminal revision cases. 4. Heard Sri Damodar Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner-A-1 and Sri Nayeeni Ravinder Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner-A3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5. Briefly stated, the prosecution version is as follows : A-1 is the owner of the Tourist bus bearing Registration No.AP-25-T-1334, A-2 is its driver and A-3 is an Assistant-cum-Agent in the Office R.T.A., Nizamabad. A-1 applied for special permit on 20-05-1996 for plying the bus from Nizamabad via Degloor, Rajara, Hyderabad, Srisailam and Mahanandi and return journey via Kurnool, Hyderabad and Nizxamabad. Considering his application, permit bearing No. 1410/96 was granted for three days i.e., 21-5-1996 to 23-5-1996. It was alleged that A-1 with a malafide intention to cheat the authorities approached A-3 and paid him an amount of Rs.200/-for preparing a forged permit, making it to appear that it is from 21-5-1996 to 27-5-1996. Accordingly, A-3 prepared forged permit with the help of counterfeit stamps of RTA and by forging the signatures of concerned authorities and handed over the same to A-1. According to the prosecution, A-2, who was the driver having knowledge about the forged permit performed the journey from Nizamabad to Tirupati and caught hold of by PW-6, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who seized the concerned documents along with the alleged forged permit. He lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Renigunta Police Station, who subsequently transferred the case to III-Town Police Station, Nizamabad on the point of jurisdiction. 6. He lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Renigunta Police Station, who subsequently transferred the case to III-Town Police Station, Nizamabad on the point of jurisdiction. 6. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused before the trial Court examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. 7. PW-1 Senior Assistant in RTA Office, Nizamabad stated in his evidence that Ex.P-1 the special permit bearing No.1410/96 which is valid from 21-5-1996 to 23-5-1996 and the initial on the said permit is not his initial. He further stated that Ex.P-2 original special permit was issued by the Secretary, RTA Nizamabad for the period from 21-5-1996 to 23-5-1996 and it bears his initial. The evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was examined as PW-2 discloses that Ex.P1 special permit, was not issued by their office. PW-3 an official of RTA Nizxamabad stated in his evidence that he inspected the bus at Renigunta check post and found that it was plying with a forged permit and it was not issued by their office. PW-6 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Renigunta, who inspected the bus at Renigunta check post at relevant time, his evidence is crucial in this case. He specifically stated in his evidence that on 23-5-1996 at about 12:40 p.m. while he was on duty at check post Renigunta he inspected the bus bearing No. AP-25-T-1334 contract carriage, which was carrying 57 passengers from Degloor to Tirupati. He found seven extra passengers in the bus. According to him, the said bus is permitted to carry only 50 passengers but it was carrying 57 passengers, which is an irregularity. In his entire evidence nothing has been stated about the forged permit. The contravention found by him was that the bus was to carry 57 passengers but it was infact carrying seven passengers extra at the time when he inspected the bus. 8. The defence theory is that due to some differences between the staff members of the RTA Nizamabad and A-1 the bus owner, a false case is foisted against the accused and that A-1 never produced any fake permit. 9. 8. The defence theory is that due to some differences between the staff members of the RTA Nizamabad and A-1 the bus owner, a false case is foisted against the accused and that A-1 never produced any fake permit. 9. Another important aspect which requires to be considered in this case is that as could be seen from the evidence of PW-4 Md.Shafiullah Khan, mediator, the police obtained the specimen signature and sample of handwriting of the third accused under a cover of panchanama for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the signatures on the alleged forged permit belong to the concerned authorities or not. It is pertinent to note in this context that the Investigation Officer did not take any steps to satisfy himself about the alleged forgery committed by A-3 by sending the specimen signatures of the authorities, who issued the permit. Further the handwriting expert was also not examined in this case. In any event, without obtaining specimen signatures of the authorities, who issued the permit no purpose will be served by taking specimen signatures and handwriting of A3. The oral evidence of PWs 1 and 4 to the effect that the permit allegedly forged and it does not contain the signatures of the issuing authority will be of no consequence. 10. Further the bus was inspected and seized on 23-5-1996 on which date even according to the prosecution A-1 the bus owner had a valid permit. Therefore, the prosecution could not be able to establish any intention or knowledge on the part of A-1 that the forged permit would be used for carrying the passengers illegally. Therefore, the way in which the investigation was proceeded creates any amount of doubt as to whether in fact any such fake permit was found in the bus or whether the same was introduced for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused in this case. Therefore, in so far as A-3 is concerned except the confessional statement, which is not admissible in evidence no evidence is forthcoming in this case that he forged the permit. Therefore, in so far as A-3 is concerned except the confessional statement, which is not admissible in evidence no evidence is forthcoming in this case that he forged the permit. Therefore, there is no evidence in this case that A-3 forged the permit unless it is proved that A-1 cheated or dishonestly used forged permit as a genuine one or he knows or has reason to believe that the permit to be forged one and he is not liable for punishment for using an genuine a forged document. Therefore, in this case absolutely there is no legal evidence to convict either A-1 or A-3. In the instant case, the handwriting expert was not examined. 11. In MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN AND ANR. V/s. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (A.I.R. 2010 SUPREME COURT – 762), it was laid down that the evidence of a finger print expert is not a substantive piece of evidence, such evidence can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence, which are other wise on record. In the instant case, except Ex.P-15 FSL report, there is no other positive evidence showing that the signatures on the alleged forged permit (Ex.P1) belong to A 3. 12. In RAVICHANDRAN V/s. STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADRAS (A.I.R. 2010 SUPREME COURT – 1922), the Supreme Court held that when the witnesses produced by the prosecution for proof of handwriting and signature of the accused on the permit, not stating that interpolation was in hand of accused, the interpolation as also initials appended thereto not being proved, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 13. When the courts below recorded conviction without there being any legal evidence and the evidence on record was not considered with proper legal perspective and when the evidence was misconstrued, the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence, reject the same and interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below under revisional jurisdiction. 14. In the instant case, as already stated, absolutely there is no legal evidence to convict A-1 and A-3 and both the courts below were misdirected in appreciating the evidence on record and erroneously convicted the revision petitioners i.e., A-1 and A-3. The conviction recorded by the courts below, therefore, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside in these criminal revision cases. 15. The conviction recorded by the courts below, therefore, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside in these criminal revision cases. 15. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court by its common judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 66 and 67 of 2000 against the Revision Petitioners (A-1 and A-3) is set aside. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.