JUDGMENT SURESH KAIT, J. (1) Vide this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 17.02.2011, whereby the appellant was held guilty under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC), and vide order dated 21.02.2011 the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years u/s 489-B IPC in addition to payment of 5,000/-. Further he was sentenced to RI for 03 years under Section 489C IPC and a fine of 5000/-. (2) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.04.2005 at about 02:30 PM, a secret information was received that one person, namely, T.P.Singh along with his two-three associates is selling fake currency notes and that he would come to Railway Station, Pahar Ganj. On the same day at about 04:00 PM, where he would deal with one person, namely, Mishra. ASI Gyanender Singh disclosed the secret information with the senior officers and at about 03:30 PM, ASI Gayanender along with Ct.Sunil, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Arun Kumar, Ct. Krishan and Ct. Bhim reached New Delhi Railway Station in two private cars. They reached near the entry gate of the Railway Station, New Delhi and requested the public persons to join the proceedings, to which they refused. A raiding party was constituted and Ct. Sanjay was deputed as decoy customer. After taking his personal search two currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each bearing Nos.IBS613919 and 8DL63396 were handed over to him and he was directed to represent himself as one Mishra and deal with the accused. Ct. Sunil was deputed as shadow witness. (3) At about 04:10 PM, three persons came to the Railway Reservation Office and the secret informer pointed towards one of them as T.P.Singh. The decoy customer and the shadow witness were given directions to deal with the said person and ASI Gyanendra stood at some distance from there. At about 04:25 PM Ct.Sanjay the decoy customer gave a pre- determined indication upon which ASI Gyanendera along with the raiding party apprehended the three said persons. All of them revealed themselves as T.P.Singh, Anand and Pintoo. (4) CT. Sanjay deposed that accused T.P.Singh had handed over 04 currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each. Accused Anand and Pintoo also disclosed that they had currency notes of 40,45,000/- with them. The shadow witness also supported the version of decoy customer. All of them revealed themselves as T.P.Singh, Anand and Pintoo. (4) CT. Sanjay deposed that accused T.P.Singh had handed over 04 currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each. Accused Anand and Pintoo also disclosed that they had currency notes of 40,45,000/- with them. The shadow witness also supported the version of decoy customer. On taking personal search of accused T.P.Singh, 02 currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each bearing Nos.IBS613919 and 8DL63396 were recovered from the pant worn by the accused which were handed over to him by decoy customer Ct.Sanjay and upon conducting personal search of accused Pappu Khan, 20 currency notes of 500/- each, which appeared to be fake were recovered. The recovered currency notes and the original notes which were handed over to accused T.P.Singh by the decoy customer were taken into police possession after sealing them with the seal of 'JK' and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sunil. (5) It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of the further investigation and upon disclosure statement and pointing out by accused T.P.Singh, one Iqbal Singh was apprehended. Fake currency notes totaling to the amount of 4,78,000/- were recovered. All the recovered notes were sent for expert opinion to Government Press Nasik. (6) The Charges was framed on the accused T.P.Singh, Anand Das and Pappu Khan for the offence punishable u/s 489-B/34 and 120-B IPC on 06.07.2006 and accused Iqbal Khan was charged for the offence punishable u/s 489-C and 120-B IPC to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. Duty Officer was examined as PW4, who further proved the registration of FIR EX.PW-4/A. (7) HC Devi Singh was brought into witness box as PW-1, who had received two parcels in the Malkhana and further handed over the same to the concerned official for being sent for expert opinion to Government Press Nasik. (8) On 06.04.2005 ASI Gyanender Singh (PW-2) on receipt of a secret information, he along with Ct. Sunil, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Krishan, Ct. Arun and Ct. Bhim Singh reached at the parking of New Delhi Railway Station at about 03:30 PM where the secret informer joined in the raiding party. He deposed that he asked five-six persons at the entry gate of the Railway Station to join the raiding party but none agreed to join. Sunil, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Krishan, Ct. Arun and Ct. Bhim Singh reached at the parking of New Delhi Railway Station at about 03:30 PM where the secret informer joined in the raiding party. He deposed that he asked five-six persons at the entry gate of the Railway Station to join the raiding party but none agreed to join. He deposed that he deputed Ct. Sanjay (PW-3) as a decoy customer and after taking his personal search, he was handed over two currency notes of 500/- denomination each having Nos.IBS613919 and 8DL63396 vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. Ct. Sanjay (PW-3) was directed to deal with the said person by the name of Mishra and Ct. Sunil (PW-6) was deputed as a shadow customer with directions to overhear the conversation of the deal between Ct. Sanjay and him. Pw-2 further deposed that thereafter he along with other staff reached at Main Gate of Reservation Office and at about 04:10 PM, three persons reached there, out of which secret informer identified one as T.P.Singh. Ct. Sanjay (Pw3) and Ct. Sunil (Pw6) shadow witness dealt with the said three persons and at about 04:25 PM Ct. Sanjay gave pre-appointed signal and all the three persons were overpowered by the members of the raiding party. He identified all the accused persons correctly in the court and stated that Ct. Sanjay told him that accused T.P.Singh had given him four currency notes in lieu of two currency notes of ' 500/- denomination each. (9) On search of accused T.P.Singh, two currency notes which were recovered from the front pocket of his shirt. On further search 20 fake currency notes in the denomination of ' 500/- each were recovered from the pocket of the pant worn by him. He further deposed that on search of accused Anand Das, 40 fake currency notes in the denomination of 500/- were recovered from right side pocket of his worn pant and on search of accused Pappu Khan @ Pintoo, 20 fake currency notes in the denomination of ' 500/- each were recovered from the right side pocket of his worn pant. The recovered currency notes were kept in separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of 'JK'. The seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B of two currency notes were handed over to Ct. Sanjay. The recovered currency notes were kept in separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of 'JK'. The seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B of two currency notes were handed over to Ct. Sanjay. Seizure memo of 20 fake currency notes recovered from accused T.P.Singh was proved as Ex.PW-2/C. Seizure memo of 40 fake currency notes recovered from accused Anand Dass is Ex.PW-2/D. Seizure memo of 20 fake currency notes Ex.PW- 2/E were recovered from accused Pappu Khan @ Pintoo. (10) ASI Gayanender Singh (PW-2) further deposed that decoy customer Ct. Sanjay (PW-3) also handed over four fake currency notes which had been given to him by accused T.P.Singh, were sealed is separate envelopes and seized vide memo Ex.PW-2/F. Sealed exhibits were handed over to Ct. Sunil (PW6), who also corroborated this fact. Further deposed, he prepared rukka Ex.PW-2/G and handed over the same to Ct. Sunil who got registered the case. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to SI Suresh Kumar(PW-7). (11) The witness further correctly identified the case property when it was produced before the court. Head Ct. Sanjay (PW-3) corroborated the testimony of PW-2 ASI Gyanender Singh and deposed that he dealt with accused T.P.Singh pretending to be as one Mishra and handed over two genuine currency notes in the denomination of 500/- in lieu of four fake currency notes of ' 500/- denomination. He also deposed regarding recovery of the fake currency notes from the possession of all the three accused persons and corroborated the testimony of PW-2. He also identified the case property when it was produced before the Court. (12) HEAD Ct. Sanjay, who was the decoy customer was examined as PW-3 and he also supported the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. Prosecution also examined SI Jagdish Kumar as PW-5 besides the aforesaid witnesses. He deposed that on 10.04.2005, accused T.P.Singh who was in police custody lead them to House No.D-105, Sector 10, Noida, U.P. where they along with SI Suresh Kumar (PW-7), Ct. Sunil (PW-6) and Ct. Arun Kumar, at the instance of accused T.P.Singh, accused Iqbal Singh was arrested vide seizure memo PW-5/A. His disclosure statement Ex.5/B was recorded and pursuant to his disclosure nine wads of currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each and 56 loose currency notes in the domination of 500/- i.e. total 956 currency notes in the denomination of 500/- each were recovered from the house of accused Iqbal Singh. All the said currency notes were found to be fake. They were converted into ten separate parcels and sealed with the seal of 'SK' and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/C. One mobile phone Nokia 2280 was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D from the possession of accused Iqbal Singh. The witness correctly identified the case property when it was produced before the Court. His testimony was corroborated by the Statement of Ct. Sunil Kumar (PW-6), who had accompanied him on 10.04.2005 and in whose presence accused Iqbal Singh got recovered 956 currency notes in the denomination of ' 500/- each from his house i.e. House No.D- 105, Sector-10, Noida, U.P. (13) Inspector Suresh Kumar (PW-7), to whom investigation was subsequently handed over by ASI Gyanender Singh was also brought in the witness box as PW-7. (14) The statement of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused T.P.Singh stated that he wants to examine one witness in his defence. However, despite several opportunities, no defence evidence was led and the opportunities for leading evidence was finally closed vide order dated 01.11.2010 by the trial Judge. (15) As discussed above and as per the prosecution case, on 06.04.2005, accused T.P.Singh, Pappu Khan and Anand Das were apprehended from near Railway Reservation Office, Pahar Ganj, on receipt of secret information. (16) MR. O.P.Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that secret informer has not been examined by the prosecution and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court titled as Bhugdomal Gangaram Vs. The State of Gujarat 1984 (1) SCC 319 wherein it was held that, since secret informer has not been examined on recording of the evidence to this effect is inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, Ms.Rajdipa Behura learned APP submitted that the prosecution witnesses have duly established the recovery of fake currency notes from the possession of the accused person. She also submitted that the report from the Government Press Nasik duly established that the said recovered notes are fake and that there is evidence on record to establish that the accused person had entered into a criminal conspiracy acquire fake currency notes with an intention to use them as genuine and that prosecution has proved its case. She also submitted that the report from the Government Press Nasik duly established that the said recovered notes are fake and that there is evidence on record to establish that the accused person had entered into a criminal conspiracy acquire fake currency notes with an intention to use them as genuine and that prosecution has proved its case. (17) Further, learned APP also placed the reliance on the testimonies of PW2 ASI Gyaneder Singh and PW3 Head Ct. Sanjay in support of the arguments that the allegations against accused T.P.Singh, Pappu Khan and Anand Das duly stand established on record by way of testimonies of these witnesses. (18) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the case of the prosecution inasmuch as even the place of apprehension of the accused persons at Mark A in the site plan Ex.PW-7/A has also not been proved on record. Further submitted that as per cross examination of PW-2 ASI Gyanender Singh, aforesaid three accused persons were apprehended at the main gate of Railway Reservation Office, whereas point shown in the site plan Ex. PW-7/A is not near the distance between parking and reservation counter is about 400-500 meters and both of them fall on the same side. (19) On considering the above arguments advanced before this Court and gone through the statements of PW-2 and PW-7 Inspector Suresh Kumar who prepared site plan PW-7/A at the instance of PW2 Gyanender Singh. ASI Gyanender Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused persons were apprehended near Railway Reservation Office, Pahar Ganj. He clearly identified all the accused persons and correctly identified currency notes, which were recovered from their possession. The testimony of PW-2 ASI Gyanender and PW-3 Head Ct. Sanjay also establishes that two genuine currency notes of 500/- denomination each bearing Nos.IBS613919 and 8DL633963, which had been handed over by the decoy customer to accused T.P.Singh and were also recovered from his possession the decoy customer were also recovered from his possession, the fake four currency notes which were handed over the decoy customer were recovered from his possession. The other two accused persons namely Pappu Khan and Anand Das were also apprehended and were found in possession of fake currency notes as per seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C, PW-2/D and PW-2/E. (20) I note, the learned Trial Judge has considered evidence on record i.e. testimony of ASI Gyanender and decoy customer Head Ct. PW-2 Sanjay Singh, the recovery of currency notes from the possession of accused T.P.Singh, Anand Dass and Pappu Khan had been duly established on record. Ct. Sunil who was examined as PW-6, who was deputed as shadow customer has also corroborated the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. As arguments advance by the learned counsel for appellant that the secrete informer has not been examined on record. (21) I am of the opinion, it do not effect the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the recovery of currency notes were in the possession of the accused persons has been duly proved on record. Further said, mere in admissibility of the evidence regarding receipt of information from the secrete informer would not established the entire case of the prosecution as argued by learned defence counsel. (22) Further argued by learned counsel for the appellant, the substance of FIR Ex.PW4/A has not been recorded in corresponding to DD No.14A which has neither been placed nor proved on record by the Prosecution. In my opinion it loses importance in view of the factum of registration of FIR. Even Duty Officer PW4 has not been cross examined. Thus, FIR EX.PW4/A stand duly proved on record. (23) Learned counsel further argued that it is the case of the prosecution that accused Iqbal Singh was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/E. It is further the case of the prosecution that the lock of the shop/ godown was opened from the key in possession of the accused. Further, a perusal of personal search memo Ex.PW7/E shows that nothing was recovered from his personal search. He argued that this cuts the entire fabric of the prosecution and suggest that nothing incriminating was recovered from the shop/godown of house No.D-105, Sector- 10, Noida, UP and that the recovery in question has been planted upon the accused Iqbal Singh. (24) On the other hand learned APP submitted that it is not a case of prosecution that the key which was carried by the accused Iqbal Singh was used to open the house. (24) On the other hand learned APP submitted that it is not a case of prosecution that the key which was carried by the accused Iqbal Singh was used to open the house. He submitted that in these circumstances the fact that nothing was recovered from his personal search is not relevant. Learned APP has drawn the attention to the Trial Judge to the testimony of PW5 SI Jagdish who deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Iqbal Singh ExPW-5/B, nine wads of currency notes in the denomination of 500/- and 56 loose currency notes in the denomination of 500/- were recovered. The case property was duly identified by the witness in court. PW-9 Inspector Suresh Kumar also deposed regarding the recovery of 956 fake currency notes in the denomination of 500/- at the instance of accused Iqbal Singh and the case property duly identified by the witness in the Court. I have gone through the record and the judgment passed by the Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has observed that it is not a case of the prosecution that the key of the godown/house bearing No.D-105, Sector 10, Noida, UP was with the accused Iqbal Singh. Further, the fact reveals the currency notes were recovered at the instance of Iqbal Singh and were found to be fake. Thus, the mere fact that the personal search memo of accused was 'nil' cannot be said to imply that the recovery has been planted. (25) The Trial Judge has also detailed the submission of the learned counsel for the accused Iqbal Singh that prosecution witnesses did not offer their search to accused Iqbal Singh or his family members despite the fact that admittedly mother, sister and brother of accused Iqbal Singh were residing in the premises of D-105, Sector-10, Noida, U.P. (26) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of High Court of Orissa titled as Ravinder Nath Prusty Vs. The State (1984) Crl.L.J.1392. However, a perusal of cross-examination of PW-7 Inspector Suresh Kumar reveals that before entering the house of accused Iqbal Singh, they offered their search to mother of accused Iqbal Singh but she refused to take their search. In the light of the said testimony of PW-7, the arguments of learned Defence counsel to this effect cannot be sustained. However, a perusal of cross-examination of PW-7 Inspector Suresh Kumar reveals that before entering the house of accused Iqbal Singh, they offered their search to mother of accused Iqbal Singh but she refused to take their search. In the light of the said testimony of PW-7, the arguments of learned Defence counsel to this effect cannot be sustained. (27) As regards the submissions of learned counsel that no independent public person joined the proceedings. On perusal of the deposition of the witnesses, I find that all the witnesses had consistently deposed that despite their efficient efforts no public persons volunteered to join the proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that any irregularity or even illegality during the investigation should not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution's case. This issue is no more res-integra and has already been decided in the following cases:- (i) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 142 "State of U.P. Vs. Hari Mohan". (ii) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3717 "Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana". (iii) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3035 "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore" (iv) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1920 "Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab". (28) Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the plea that there is nothing on record to suggest that recovery effected from the jurisdiction of Police Station Noida from house No. D-105, Sector 10, Noida, U.P. was ever reported to the police officials of Noida and thus provisions of Section 166 Cr.P.C have not been complied with. He further argued that non- compliance of this provision also renders the investigation as suspect. Reliance has been placed in judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Chaman Lal Vs. The State reported as RCR 1987 (1) 208. In this regard, learned APP submitted that PW-7 deposed in his cross-examination that before proceeding in Noida, which is in U.P., ACP, Dr.Ashok Malik, Anti Extortion Cell had granted permission though admittedly no such permission was placed on record. He further explained that ACP was in contact with the senior officials in Noida regarding the case. He denied the suggestion that no such fact was mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses. He further explained that ACP was in contact with the senior officials in Noida regarding the case. He denied the suggestion that no such fact was mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses. (29) Even otherwise, even if it is held that provisions of Section 166 Cr.P.C. appears to have not been complied with by the Investigating Officer, however, recovery of the currency notes has been duly established on record, as is evident from the consistent testimony of PW-6 and PW-7. (30) It was also discussed above, it has been laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments that any defect in investigation or any irregularity or illegality committed by the Investigating Officer will not thereby render Prosecution's case untrustworthy nor it is a ground for acquittal of appellant. Thus, there is no force in the said argument, nor can it be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that seizure memo Ex.PW2/E, where it is mentioned. A careful perusal of cross examination of PW-1 Devi Singh, MHC(M) does reveal that he deposed about a relevant entry in the malkhana register as per seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. Moreover, this fact has been explained by two Prosecution witnesses namely PW-2 ASI Gyanender Singh and PW-3 Ct. Sanjay in his cross-examination. Both the prosecution witnesses have stated that though at Point X, seal impression of 'SK' is written. Both the prosecution witnesses stated that the though at point X, seal impression of 'SK' is written, but the same was written by mistake. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, 1040 currency notes were recovered. However, as per record only 1038 currency notes were received in Government Press Nasik implying that there is tampering with the case property. (31) In this regard PW-7 Inspector Suresh Kumar who was asked to clarify in his cross-examination about number of currency notes. He stated in his cross examination that on 10.04.2005, they recovered 09 wads of fake currency notes and on wads containing and 56 loose currency notes. He stated that notes were hurriedly counted and inadvertently, while counting it may have been possible that one or two currency notes may have been less in one or two wads. He stated in his cross examination that on 10.04.2005, they recovered 09 wads of fake currency notes and on wads containing and 56 loose currency notes. He stated that notes were hurriedly counted and inadvertently, while counting it may have been possible that one or two currency notes may have been less in one or two wads. (32) Even otherwise, there are sufficient evidence on record to establish the recovery of currency notes from the accuse persons. There is also evidence on record to establish that the said currency notes were not genuine. After going through the evidence on record and discussion above, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the sentence of the appellant having already undergone nearly 03 years and the unexpired period of sentence is only 04 months and 02 days as on 19.03.2011 as per the Nominal Roll dated 30.07.2011. (33) I found force in this contention. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the sentence already undergone. (34) Appeal is partially allowed. Vide order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the learned Trial Judge, the appellant was released on bail. (35) The personal bond of appellant cancelled and his surety stands discharged. No order as to costs. 1971 CRLJ 1335 DELHI HIGH COURT Pritam Singh Safee, J. AMAR NATH, CONVICT VERSUS STATE Criminal Revn. No. 451 of 1969 (From order of K. S. Sidhu, Addl. S.J., Delhi, Decided on : 29-9-1969, March 15, 1971. ORDER The prosecution case against the petitioner is best disclosed by the statement of P.W. 3, Khushal Chand Wadhwa. His mother Ishwari Devi, who appeared as P.W. 4, had an account with the New Bank of India, Limited. She owned property in respect of which house-tax was to be paid. Khushal Chand P.W. 3 deposed that he had gone to the Municipal Corporation Officer, Karol Bagh Zone, in the month of April, 1965, with a cheque book belonging to his mother. She had signed one of the cheques. Her admitted signatures appear on Exhibit P. 2. The amount was not filled in. The payee's name was also to be filled in by P.W. 3. She had signed one of the cheques. Her admitted signatures appear on Exhibit P. 2. The amount was not filled in. The payee's name was also to be filled in by P.W. 3. As to why the amount was not filled in P.W. 3 stated :- "The amount was to be filled by me in the office, after making enquiry." The deposition excites a little surprise. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi issues bills for house-tax. It is then that the amounts are to be paid. It cannot be understood as to why the amount was to be enquired about. The cheque was not to be left blank regarding the payee. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was obviously to be the payee. No explanation is furnished by P.W. 3 as to why the name of the payee was not filled in by him and the cheque book was carried in that particular situation to the Corporation office. This aspect assumes importance because of the deposition by him that on the second day of his visit to the Corporation office, when he was going to leave for his office, he searched his pocket and found the cheque-book missing. That very evening he searched again for the cheque book. He did not find it. He searched for it on the next day also and then informed the Bank that the cheque-book belonging to his mother had been lost. Again it is a matter for surprise that no information given in writing to the Bank has been produced in this case. Exhibit P. 2 was blank cheque bearing the signatures of Smt. Ishwari Devi P.W. 4. Written information ought to have been given to the New Bank disclosing that a cheque so signed had been lost and that its payment was being stopped. 2. According to P.W. 3, after about a fortnight of the loss of the cheque-book his brother's wife went to the Bank to find out the balance in the account of his mother and came to know that two of the missing cheques had been encashed by the Bank. 3. To start with, P.W. 3 appears to have prevaricated on the question of his having informed the Bank. Had the Bank been really informed about the loss of the cheque-book, no cheques from the said cheque-book may have been encashed. 3. To start with, P.W. 3 appears to have prevaricated on the question of his having informed the Bank. Had the Bank been really informed about the loss of the cheque-book, no cheques from the said cheque-book may have been encashed. There was, in any case, no information given to the Bank that the cheques, which may purport to have been issued by Smt. Ishwari Devi, should not be encashed. 4. Khushal Chand deposed that he went to the Bank on being informed by his brother's wife and there he saw the cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2. The amounts covered by the cheques had been credited in favour of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and then after getting the letter Exhibit P.W. 2/B signed by his mother Ishwari Devi, addressed to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he delivered the same at the office of the addressee and therefrom went to the office of the Corporation, made enquiries and found out the names of the persons who had been benefited by the encashment of the said cheques. After contacting those persons, namely, Shri Kirpa Ram and Shri Nanak Chand Chopra, P.W. 3, according to his statement, went to the Corporation Office again. He alleged : "Then I again went to the office of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi, and came to know that Amar Nath accused had dealt with these cheques." Who told about Amar Nath accused ? Why is it that the informant's name has been kept by P.W. 3 to himself ? The informant was an important link in the chain of circumstances. His deposition, as it proceeds further, is of significance in this case because the same has been relied upon by the courts below in order to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the offences for which he stands convicted. That deposition is :- "Then I contacted Amar Nath accused. He met me in the Karol Bagh office. He told me that the cheque-book was with him and that he had written on the body of two cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 and got them credited in favour of the Corporation. He promised to return the amount to me and also the remaining cheques. He met me in the Karol Bagh office. He told me that the cheque-book was with him and that he had written on the body of two cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 and got them credited in favour of the Corporation. He promised to return the amount to me and also the remaining cheques. The accused Amar Nath came to my house the same evening and paid me the amount of those cheques as well as the cheque-book Exhibit P.W. 3/1." It cannot be appreciated why the cheque-book was not immediately taken by Khushal Chand from Amar Nath when it had been told to him that the same was with the petitioner. It is not stated as to at what hour P.W. 3 had met the petitioner. If the cheque-book was not with the petitioner at the time when P.W. 3 met him, he could have asked him to accompany him to any place where the same was lying. Why was it that the cheque-book was returned so easily by the petitioner to P.W. 3 and the amounts covered by the two cheques allegedly forged by him, were also paid out ? There is no explanation furnished by the prosecution in this respect. The cheque-book was produced before the police by P.W. 3. He deposed :- "The police came into possession of cheque-book from me vide recovery memo Exhibit P.W. 3/2, which bears my signatures." 5. As to the alleged forgeries in Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 (the cheques in question), it is appropriate to notice his statement :- "I cannot identify the signatures of my mother with certainty." "The body writing of cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 were not written by my mother of me." 6. It is obvious that the prosecution was to prove that it was the accused alone who had forged the body writings in Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 and the signatures of P.W. 4, Ishwari Devi on Exhibit P. 1. If the prosecution was not to succeed in doing that it was to fail in proving any of the four charges, which were :- "Firstly :- That you on 23rd of April 1965 near Corporation Office, Karol Bagh, Delhi, committed theft of cheque book containing cheques Nos. If the prosecution was not to succeed in doing that it was to fail in proving any of the four charges, which were :- "Firstly :- That you on 23rd of April 1965 near Corporation Office, Karol Bagh, Delhi, committed theft of cheque book containing cheques Nos. 227037 to 227040 belonging to Ishwari Devi by removing from the person of Kaushal Chand and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379, I.P.C., and within the cognizance of this court. Secondly, that you in the month of April, 1965, at Delhi forged cheques Nos. 227037 and 227038 both dated 6-5-1965 drawn on the New Bank of India, Ltd., purporting to be a valuable security by writing the name of the payee "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" on both the cheques and by writing the amount i.e. "Rs. 66.75 np. only" on cheque No. 227037 and "Rs. 27.50 np. only" on cheque No. 227038 and by writing Ishwari Devi as drawer on cheque No. 227038, with inten to cheat the said New Bank of India Ltd. and thereby committed the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court. Thirdly, that you in the month of April 1965 cheated the New Bank of India Ltd. by drawing Rs. 94.25 P. through cheques No. 227038 dated 6-4-1965 for Rs. 27.50 np. and cheque No. 227037 dated 6-4-1965 for Rs. 66.75 P. and thereby committed an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court. Fourthly, that you in the same month of April 1965 dishonestly used the abovesaid cheques knowing and having reason to believe the same to be forged one and thereby committed an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court." 7. As has been mentioned earlier, those who had benefited by the encashment of the cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 were P.W. 10, Kirpa Ram and P.W. 19. Nanak Chand Chopra. While Kirpa Ram benefited out of Exhibit P. 1 Nanak Chand Chopra benefited because of the payment which purported to have been made through Exhibit P. 2. It was the prosecution's own case that Exhibit P. 2 had been signed by Ishwari Devi P.W. 4. The prosecution struggled to prove that the body writing in the two cheques were also made by the petitioner. It was the prosecution's own case that Exhibit P. 2 had been signed by Ishwari Devi P.W. 4. The prosecution struggled to prove that the body writing in the two cheques were also made by the petitioner. So far as the payment purporting to have been made for the benefit of Nanak Chand was concerned, it had to rely on the statement of the said witness read with the of P.W. 1, Shri M. R. Prabhu, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. Nanak Chand's own deposition sufficiently displaces the prosecution case. The prosecution had relied upon a letter proved as Exhibit P.W. 19/A addressed by P.W. 19, Nanak Chand Chopra to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. According to the said letter he had paid the amount of Rs. 66.75 through cheque No. DF 466451 drawn on the Central Commercial bank. In the presence of the said document the trial court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the amount covered by Exhibit P. 2 was deposited towards the payment of the bill Exhibit P.W. 19/C, which P.W. 19 had received, and in respect of the payment whereof he had issued the cheque drawn on the Central Commercial Bank. The evidence of P.W. 12 that cheques Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 were received by him and they bore his signatures on their back did not indicate as to how and on whose account had he received the cheques. He clearly stated :- "I do not know in whose account these cheques were received." The circumstantial evidence furnished by P.W. 12 along with the register Exhibit P.W. 12/A produced by him containing certain entries did not make out as to who had filled in the body writings in Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2. The evidence furnished by his opinion by P.W. 1 fails to establish that the body writing in Exhibit P. 2 was necessarily made by the petitioner. If that is the situation regarding that body writing, after a thorough appraisal of the circumstantial evidence including that of P.W. 12 and the evidence of P.W. 1, then it cannot be any better regarding the body writing in Exhibit P. 1. Mere forging of body writing in any cheque would not by itself make it available for being used for the purpose of cheating anyone. Mere forging of body writing in any cheque would not by itself make it available for being used for the purpose of cheating anyone. It is to be seen whether the prosecution has established that the signatures of P.W. 4. Smt. Ishwari Devi on the cheque Exhibit P. 1 were forged by the petitioner and none else. It may be mentioned that the trial court did not record any conviction in respect of Exhibit P. 2. 8. As mentioned earlier P.W. 10 Kirpa Ram had allegedly benefited by the encashment of Exhibit P. 1 Apart from him the prosecution has examined Tirath Lal P.W. 8 and Din Dayal Sharma P.W. 9, in order to furnish circumstantial evidence connecting the petitioner with the crimes. P.W. 10, Kirpa Ram deposed that he had to pay house-tax in respect of his house in village Khanpur, and he gave the bill which he had received for depositing the house-tax amount to Din Dayal P.W. 9 who was his neighbour. That had happened about three and a half years prior to his deposition in court on the 19th of July, 1968. He gave an amount of Rs. 25/- to Din Dayal. He did not get the receipt for 2-3 months and demanded the same from Din Dayal. He got the receipt after the said period and then during the investigation of the case against the petitioner he produced the same which was taken from his possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.W. 10/A. 9. His deposition did not mention the petitioner. P.W. 9, Din Dayal Sharma stated that having taken the sum of Rs. 25/- from Kripa Ram he went to the office of Tirath Lal, P.W. 8, who was an employee in the Corporation office there and handed over the bill and the money to him. After some time Tirath Lal is alleged to have told P.W. 9 that scavenging tax could not be deleted but water tax was deleted and that he had paid the amount to Amar Nath petitioner and that Amar Nath would give the receipt in a day or two. Din Dayal did not get the receipt for about a month or two and then he went alone to the accused for getting the receipt. He deposed :- "He told me that he had paid the amount and that the receipt was lying at his house. Din Dayal did not get the receipt for about a month or two and then he went alone to the accused for getting the receipt. He deposed :- "He told me that he had paid the amount and that the receipt was lying at his house. After some time I told the accused either to give the receipt or I would take up the matter with the Zonal Commissioner. After 8-10 days, Tirath Lal gave me receipt Exhibit P.W. 8/A, which is on the bill itself. Exhibit P.W. 8/A is not the same bill which Kirpa ram originally gave to me. In the original bill, water tax was included while it was not so in this bill." 10. I have seen Exhibit P.W. 8/A. It bears the payment stamp showing that the amount of Rs. 27.50 had been received on the 6th of April, 1965. It is quite intriguing that no water tax is shown in the bill. The name of Kirpa Ram and the house number are correctly stated. It is significant that P.W. 9 admitted that Exhibit P.W. 8/A was the bill which he had given to Tirath Lal. It is no doubt true that P.W. 9 did state at the trial that he had himself contacted Amar Nath but then he received Exhibit P.W. 8/A from Tirath Lal and not from Amar Nath. If a reference is made to charge No. 1 it cannot be appreciated as to how the Corporation had received the payment of Rs. 27.50 as shown by the endorsement on Exhibit P.W. 8/A on the 6th of April, 1965. That is so because the first charge related to an alleged offence of theft and started by the allegation that the accused had on 23rd of April, 1965, near Corporation Office Karol Bagh, Delhi, committed the theft of the cheque book containing the concerned cheques. If the cheque book had not been stolen or lost by P.W. 3 before the 6th of April, 1965, the endorsement on Exhibit P.W. 8/A would remain disconnected with cheque Exhibit P. 1. It is nowhere mentioned in Exhibit P.W. 8/A that the payment was received through a cheque and not by cash. The only two witnesses, who furnished the circumstantial evidence, namely, P.Ws. 8 and 9, do not depose either regarding any cheque book or cheques which they may have ever seen. It is nowhere mentioned in Exhibit P.W. 8/A that the payment was received through a cheque and not by cash. The only two witnesses, who furnished the circumstantial evidence, namely, P.Ws. 8 and 9, do not depose either regarding any cheque book or cheques which they may have ever seen. If the payment made through Exhibit P.W. 8/A is taken to have been made through Exhibit P. 2 then it cannot be ruled out that Tirath Lal himself may have been concerned with the cheques in question. It is in fact not the prosecution case that anybody saw the cheque book with Amar Nath petitioner on the 6th of April, 1965, or even till the 12th of April, 1965, on which date the cheques were encashed by the Bank. 11. The evidence of Tirath Lal, P.W. 8 is to the effect that in January or February, 1965, Din Dayal Sharma, P.W. 9 gave him a house-tax bill in the name of Kirpa Ram and Rs. 25/- for getting the same deposited. The witness never knew Kirpa Ram. The payment covered by Exhibit P. 1 is not that of Rs. 25/-. According to P.W. 8 he gave to the petitioner the bill and the amount of Rs. 25/- and after some time he was allegedly told by the petitioner that he had got the water tax deducted but the scavenging tax could not be deducted and the sum due was Rs. 27.50 which was of necessity to be deposited. 12. If this deposition is accepted as correct, then the original bill was for a bigger amount than Rs. 27.50 and included an amount towards the watertax as well. If the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9 were to be accepted then Kirpa Ram had given Rs. 25/- towards the payment of a bill the original amount whereof was above Rs. 27.50. Why was that ? The exact amount for which Kirpa Ram had received the bill is not mentioned in his deposition. It was further deposed by P.W. 8 that at the time when the petitioner told him that the amount to be deposited was Rs. 27.50 one Hira Singh Overseer was standing near him and the witness (P.W. 8) took Rs. 2.50 from the said Hira Singh Overseer and paid them to the accused. It is surprising that P.W. 8 did not have even the paltry amount of Rs. 27.50 one Hira Singh Overseer was standing near him and the witness (P.W. 8) took Rs. 2.50 from the said Hira Singh Overseer and paid them to the accused. It is surprising that P.W. 8 did not have even the paltry amount of Rs. 2.50 with him and had to borrow it from Hira Singh. Why did he do that ? Why did he not contact Din Dayal Sharma, another employee in the Corporation Office and tell him that an additional amount of Rs. 2.50 was required ? The amount was really to be paid for Kirpa Ram, whom P.W. 8 never knew. The testimony of P.W. 8 Further proceeds :- "In April 1965 I told the accused that a sufficient time had already passed and I asked him either to deposit the amount for I would make a report against him. The accused told me that he had made arrangements and would deposit the amount soon." According to the witness the accused had received the amount in cash. Why was he to make any arrangements ? According to the said witness Din Dayal had also told him that he had met the accused. The depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9 display anxiety to corroborate each other. It is affirmed in the statement of P.W. 8 :- "The accused then gave me receipt in the first week of April, 1965. That receipt is Exhibit P.W. 8/A. The receipt is given on the bill itself. This bill was not the same which was given to the accused by me. On enquiry he told me that he had lost the original bill and he got the duplicate prepared." 13. The prosecution has produced no independent evidence to the effect that P.W. 8/A is a duplicate bill. In the circumstances of this case it cannot be ruled out that the cheque book belonging to P.W. 4, which P.W. 3 had lost and which was never stolen, may have, fallen into the hands to Tirath Lal himself. Inference apart, the convictions can be allowed to stand only if it can be concluded that the prosecution has established that the petitioner made the alleged forgeries. Inference apart, the convictions can be allowed to stand only if it can be concluded that the prosecution has established that the petitioner made the alleged forgeries. It is indeed intriguing that P.W. 1 has nowhere deposed that on comparison of any specimen writings he has been able to give any opinion that the signatures of Ishwari Devi on Exhibit P. 1 had been made by Amar Nath. Why did the courts below not take this aspect into consideration ? The prosecution omitted to lead any expert evidence to establish that the signatures of Ishwari Devi on Exhibit P. 1 had been made by the petitioner. As to the body-writing the statement of P.W. 1 cannot be categorised as being any the better in respect of P. 2, than what it is in respect of P. 1. It is very unsafe to rely on evidence regarding pen lifts, pen pressures and the movements of certain fingers, the wrist and the rest. The expert evidence in every case must receive conclusive corroboration from circumstantial evidence. Wherever the evidence combined unerringly points in the direction of the guilt of a particular person and when it is possible to determine that he alone could have committed the forgery only then the offence defined by Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code can be hold to have been proved. The accused can be punished if he falls within the meaning of : "whoever makes". The prosecution has, therefore, to establish that only the particular person charged with having committed forgery has committed the offence. In this case the prosecution has hopelessly failed to do so. 14. The courts below have relied upon the deposition of P.W. 3 and have believed him in respect of the admissions allegedly made by Amar Nath. The particular portion of his deposition has been reproduced in an earlier part. When cross-examined regarding those admissions, P.W. 3 stated :- "When I produced the cheque book to the police, I had told the police that the same had been given to me by the accused. My statement was recorded by the police and I had told that the accused had given me the cheque-book. My statement was recorded on 2/3 occasions by different investigation officers. I do not know their names. I do not know if any Roshan Lal Sub-Inspector recorded my statement. My statement was recorded by the police and I had told that the accused had given me the cheque-book. My statement was recorded on 2/3 occasions by different investigation officers. I do not know their names. I do not know if any Roshan Lal Sub-Inspector recorded my statement. I do not remember if the police recorded my statement on 26th June, 1965. It is wrong that I had not informed the police that the cheque book was given to me by the accused. I had informed the police that the accused admitted before me that he had used the cheques in question. It is wrong that no such statement was made by me before the police." 15. The learned counsel for the accused wanted to contradict the witness by his statement made before the police as recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and furnished to the accused petitioner, under Section 173 thereof. The question was disallowed. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpreting which the question was disallowed, is :- "162. Statements to police not to be signed; use of such statements in evidence. The question was disallowed. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpreting which the question was disallowed, is :- "162. Statements to police not to be signed; use of such statements in evidence. - (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made : Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly provided may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination." It is urged on behalf of the State that the cross-examination for establishing the contradiction was rightly disallowed because the provision has a legislative limitation contained in it inasmuch as the contradiction can only be established in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am clearly of the view that where a court is to disallow a question on the basis that the accused or the prosecution cannot be allowed to cross-examine on account of the limitation contained in the aforecited proviso, the court must record as speaking order if the court is of the view that the question pertains to an omission. It would not be sufficient merely to express that the objection on behalf of either of the parties was being upheld. 16. A scrutiny of the statement of P.W. 3 discloses that the trial court was of necessity faced with a situation where there being an omission in the statement recorded under Section 161 the question had to be disallowed. It would not be sufficient merely to express that the objection on behalf of either of the parties was being upheld. 16. A scrutiny of the statement of P.W. 3 discloses that the trial court was of necessity faced with a situation where there being an omission in the statement recorded under Section 161 the question had to be disallowed. No version having been given by P.W. 3 regarding the production of the cheque book by Amar Nath and the alleged admissions by him, the trial court was faced with situation where there was no statement under Section 161 by which the witness could have been contradicted. Admissions, so allegedly made to P.W. 3, could not have been utilised to conclude that the petitioner had ever forged the writings in Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 or deposited the cheques, the benefit whereof was to go to P.Ws. 10 and 19. In any case, no amount had been given to the petitioner for the payment covered by Exhibit P. 1. The embellishment made by P.W. 3 in his statement in court is unforgivable prevarication. It remains very doubtful if the body writing in Exhibit P. 1 or the signatures of Ishwari Devi on it at point Q. 1 were made by the petitioner. 17. The prosecution having failed to prove any case against the petitioner, he was wrongly convicted. All the convictions are set aside. The petitioner is hereby acquitted. Revision allowed.