Judgment :- 1. The appeals have been arising out of the conviction and sentence, dated 27.11.1998, made in Special C.C.No.1 of 1990, on the file of the learned Special Judge-Cum-I Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 2. The learned Special Judge has acquitted A1 to A3 and convicted A4 to A8. A8/R.Marudhachalam preferred an appeal in C.A.No.1074 of 1998, but he was died during the pendency of the appeal and hence, the charge against him was abated. One of the appellants in Crl.A.No.1067/1998/A5-P. Thyagarajan was also died. Hence, his charge has been abated. Now the appeals are pending in respect of A4, A6 and A7 alone. 3. A4-R. Subramaniam is the appellant in Crl.A.1069 of 1998, A6-P. Subramaniam is one of the appellants in Crl.A.No.1067 of 1998 and A7-R. Arumugam is the appellant in Crl.A.No.1070 of 1998. 4. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are as follows; A4- fine amount Rs.1000/- A5-fine amount Rs.2,000/- A6- fine amount Rs.1000/- A7-fine amount Rs.2000/- A8-fine amount Rs.2,000/- 5. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A4 to A7, they have preferred the present appeals jointly. During the pendency of Crl.A.No.1067 of 1998, A5 died. Hence Crl.A.No.1067 of 1998 is dismissed as the charge levelled against him stands abated. 6. The Respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore, has filed a final report stating that on the basis of the complaint given by PW1-Malaiswamy there was a falsification of records and the same was used as original document and cheated the Government by issuing cement permits for 607 tonnes to various persons with a criminal conspiracy between A1 to A8. Hence, a charge sheet has been filed under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of IPC and under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 against one Ahamed Sheriff, Balakrishnan - A1, Jagannathan – A2 and Ganapathi - A3 and against A4 -R. Subramaniam, A5-P.Thyagarajan, A6-P. Subramaniam, A7-R. Arumugam and A8-R.Marudhachalam. 7. The learned Special Judge, after following the procedure framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he examined 36 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW36 and marked the documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.921 and material objects MO1 and MO2. 8. 7. The learned Special Judge, after following the procedure framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he examined 36 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW36 and marked the documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.921 and material objects MO1 and MO2. 8. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses is as follows: (i) B.Ahamed Sheriff, while he was working as Tahsildar, during the period from November 1980 to April 1981, issued cement permit to the tune of 607 tonnes by conspiring with other accused. PW3 - Mr. Brammanayagam is the Special Tahsildar, issued a circular Ex.P.5 dated 16.12.1978 stating that how the cement permits to be issued to the consumers and if a consumer wants more than 20 bags of cement, he ought to have enclosed Engineer's certificate, Engineer's estimate and approved plan issued by the competent authority, then only the Tahsildar will issue a cement permit. The token register is marked as Ex.P.6 and in the application register, applications from Sl.No.1251 to Sl.No.3503 are marked as Ex.P.7 and applications from 3504 to 4569 is marked as Ex.P.8. (ii) As soon as permit has been issued, the applicant's signature has been obtained in the application register. On random checking, of token No.3806/81, on 7.10.1981, it was issued for supply of cement in second instalment and the same is marked as Ex.P.9. In Ex.P.9, One P. Surbamaniam is the applicant and the plan found in Ex.P.9 was prepared by R. Subramaniam -A4, the signature and seal of the Municipality has been different. Then only he directed their Subordinates to place 114 files relating to the plan prepared by A4 . Then he sent the same to Coimbatore Municipality Town Planning Division to obtain a clarification that whether the plans prepared by R.Subramaniam are true and genuine? They replied that out of 114 files, except one file, the other 113 files were fabricated documents and Coimbatore Municipality has not granted any approval for construction of the building. On the basis of that, he prepared a report Ex.P.1 and submitted the same to District Collector, Coimbatore. (iii) As per 113 files, nearly 750 tonnes of cement permit has been granted on the basis of the files and fabricated documents. As per Ex.P.97 to P104, A1-Ahamed Sheriff/Tahsildar has issued cement permits and the plans are marked as Ex.P.31 to P39. (iii) As per 113 files, nearly 750 tonnes of cement permit has been granted on the basis of the files and fabricated documents. As per Ex.P.97 to P104, A1-Ahamed Sheriff/Tahsildar has issued cement permits and the plans are marked as Ex.P.31 to P39. P.W.3 perused Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.95. Ex.P.74 did not contain any seal and the signatures found in Ex.P.31 to P.39 are not belonged to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation. The seals are different. Ex.P.9 to P.30, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.73, P.75, Ex.P.95 did not contain the signatures . (iv) On the basis of the report filed by PW3-Brahmanayagam, PW1 has appointed three officers viz., PW6 Dhamodaran, PW4 Surya Narayanan and PW5 Garudanandham and directed them to submit a report. On that basis, they perused the documents and submitted their reports and that reports are fortifying the report of BrahmanayagamPW3 under Ex.P1. Then he satisfied with that and prepared his report Ex.P.2 and he forwarded the same along with Ex.P.1 to Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. PW3 also sent another report Ex.P.3 on 24.4.1982 and the same was also forwarded to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. (v) PW8-Srinivasan, while he was working as Additional Head Quarters Tahsildar during the period of 27.08.1980 to 30.6.1981, he deposed that A1/Balakrishnan was working as Junior Assistant, A2/Jagannathan was working as Assistant & A3/Ganapathy was working as Junior Assistant and the applications for issuance of cement permits were registered under Ex.P.6 register and he has also signed and initialled in Ex.P.111 to P114 and Ex.P.84 on 16.2.1981. (vi) P.W.35-Periasamy, who is well acquaintance with the handwritings and signatures of Mr. T.T.V. Raman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, deposed that Mr. T.T.V.Raman has received Exs.P1 and P2 and registered a case in Crime No.2/AC/82 u/s.120-B, 465, 471 r/w.465, 472 and 420 of IPC and u/s.5(2) r/w.5 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the First Information Report was marked as Ex.P.911. He took the matter for investigation on 21.9.1982 and he met witness PW3-Brahmmanayagam and recorded his statement. On 22.9.1982, he made the house search of A4/R.Subramaniam in the presence of PW9/S.K. Arumugam and Rangasamy along with his Inspectors K.K.Muthusamy and Bhiman. After giving prior information of house search to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, he seized 12 rubber seals and 17 documents under the house search list Ex.P.117, the seized seals are marked as MO1 series. On 22.9.1982, he made the house search of A4/R.Subramaniam in the presence of PW9/S.K. Arumugam and Rangasamy along with his Inspectors K.K.Muthusamy and Bhiman. After giving prior information of house search to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, he seized 12 rubber seals and 17 documents under the house search list Ex.P.117, the seized seals are marked as MO1 series. House search has been made in accordance with law and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. A4/R.Subramaniam was arrested and produced before judicial custody on 5.10.1982. PW1 was examined by T.T.V. Raman and he recorded his statement. (vii) On 6.4.1983, he examined other witnesses Mohan kumar, A.C. Babu and recorded their statements on 7.4.1983. He examined Thiru. Palaniappan, Town Planning Officer and obtained 163 files in respect of according cement permits from PW3. Since there was a suspicion in the seal of Coimbatore Municipality, Mr. T.T.V. Raman, sent his letter dated 7.4.1983 along with 163 files and that letter was marked as Ex.P.109. Coimbatore Municipality perused 163 files and gave a reply letter Ex.P.110. He examined other witnesses Jagannathan, Ganapathy and Jayaram and recorded their statements. On 9.4.1983, he examined T.K. Sivashanmugam and on 13.4.1983 he examined Palanivelu and on 14.4.1983 he examined T.V. Srinivasan and other relevant witnesses and recorded their statements. He examined PW4, 5 and 6 and obtained their reports Exs.P.106,107 and 108 . (viii) On 11.03.1986, he arrested and examined one Ramasamy and recorded his statement. He gave his requisition Ex.P.292 before the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording confession of the said Ramasamy/P.W.10. P.W.32-Kumaravel, is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, who forwarded the same to P.W.33-Ayyasamy, learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, to record Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Then P.W.32 considered Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 and gave tender of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. after following the procedure and the tender of pardon was marked as Ex.P319. T.T.V.Raman also obtained specimen writings and signatures from approver/Ramasamy under Ex.P.342 and on 4.3.1986, he examined Arumugam-A7 and obtained his Tamil writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.343 series. On 24.3.1986, he examined Thyagarajan-A5 and obtained his writings and signature under Ex.P344 and likewise, he obtained specimen writings and signatures of the accused A4/R.Subramaniam under Ex.P345 & K.Nataraj under Ex.P346 & A8/Maruthachalam under Ex.P347. On 24.3.1986, he examined Thyagarajan-A5 and obtained his writings and signature under Ex.P344 and likewise, he obtained specimen writings and signatures of the accused A4/R.Subramaniam under Ex.P345 & K.Nataraj under Ex.P346 & A8/Maruthachalam under Ex.P347. (ix) Then he gave a requisition to the concerned Magistrate to send the specimen signatures and writings with the disputed documents to Forensic Department for obtaining Expert's opinion. That letter is Ex.P.912 to P914. The letter sent from Coimbatore Tahsildar to Associate Engineering Company calling for the report pertaining to the particulars regarding supply of cement bags during the year 1981 to 1982 under Ex.P.915, for which, he received a reply under Ex.P.916. Then he examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. Likewise, he sent another letter to Jagathram Company, Mettupalayam, calling for the particulars regarding the supply of cement bags on 19.6.1985 under Ex.P.917 and for that, he received reply under Ex.P.918. He also sent another letter to Mohan and company regarding particulars of supply of cement bags during 1981 to 1982 and the reply received for the same is Ex.P.919. (x) He wrote a letter to Senior Regional Manager, Civil Supplies Department, Coimbatore, and the reply from that Department is Ex.P.920. After obtaining sanction from PW2/ Swaminathan for prosecuting the accused A1 to A3, sanction letter is marked as Ex.P.4 and T.T.V.Raman filed charge sheet. (xi) The learned Special Judge placed incriminating evidence against the accused, the accused denied the same. After framing charges, before trial, A1/Ahmed Sheriff was died. So the array of parties has been re-arranged as A1 to A8 instead of A1 to A9. A1 to A3, who are the Government Servants were acquitted. A8 Marudhachalam and A5 Thyagarajan were died during the pendency of the appeal. Now the appeals have been filed by A4/ R. Subramanyam, A6/P. Subramanyam and A7/R. Arumugam. 9. Mr. J.S.Mahalingam, learned Amicus curiae appearing for the appellant/A4 would submit that A4 has prepared a plan in favour of one Narayanan and few others. Whenever parties approached him, he used to prepare the plans and estimates. But he is not a competent person to verify whether such parties are the owners of the property. The Special Court has not considered this fact. He further submitted that one T.T.V.Raman, who was working as D.S.P., initially registered an F.I.R., but he was not examined before the Court. But he is not a competent person to verify whether such parties are the owners of the property. The Special Court has not considered this fact. He further submitted that one T.T.V.Raman, who was working as D.S.P., initially registered an F.I.R., but he was not examined before the Court. It is further submitted that A1, who was an Assistant and A2 & A3, who are Junior Assistants and they all were working in Taluk Office, Coimbatore and they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. He further submitted that the appellant/A4, who is neither a Government servant nor a public servant is found guilty for the charge levelled against him, but A4 ought to have acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that investigating officer stated that he had obtained specimen signature of A4. But the appellant/A4 in section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, he stated that he had not furnished his specimen signatures and writings, but only a letter with his signature was obtained from him. The Special Court has placed much reliance upon the deposition of P.W.10, who is an approver and his evidence itself falsified the case of the prosecution and his evidence is not trustworthy, since A1 to A3 were acquitted by disbelieving the approver's statement, the Special Court ought to have acquitted the appellant/A4. In the seizure list, official witnesses alone have attested the same. Furthermore, sanction has not been accorded within two months and it has been granted after 10 months without any fresh materials that too after change of Government. But after the death of investigating Officer Mr. T.T.V.Raman, D.S.P., the rest of investigation was carried out by the Inspector of Police without getting any prior sanction from the concerned Magistrate. Hence, the investigation itself is vitiated, since it has not been done by the competent person. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.11, P.W.13, P.W.16, P.W.21 and P.W.31 are uncorroborated. A1 to A3, who are public servants have been acquitted from all the charges including criminal conspiracy. Hence, this appellant, who is not a public servant, ought to have acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that there is a delay in filing F.I.R. in this case. The complaint drafted on 04.04.1982 and it was signed by Coimbatore District Collector/P.W.1, on 05.04.1982 and the complaint was sent by P.W.1 on 18.05.1982. Hence, this appellant, who is not a public servant, ought to have acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that there is a delay in filing F.I.R. in this case. The complaint drafted on 04.04.1982 and it was signed by Coimbatore District Collector/P.W.1, on 05.04.1982 and the complaint was sent by P.W.1 on 18.05.1982. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the case was registered only on 17.09.1982. The learned Amicus Curiae would further submit that the Expert's opinion has not been corroborated by any other witnesses and it is unsafe to convict A4 only on the basis of P.W.34-handwriting expert's opinion. But the Special Court has erred in convicting A4. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against A4. 10. Mrs. C. Sangamithirai, learned counsel appearing for appellants/A6 and A7 submitted that A6 & A7 are neither public servants nor Government servants and it was alleged that they are middlemen and there is no convincing evidence for convicting A6 and A7. It is further submitted that signature of A6 has not been obtained for handwriting expert's opinion and P.W.10-Ramasamy, the approver's evidence is not an admissible evidence. The Special Court has erred in convicting the accused solely on the basis of expert's opinion. She further submitted that A7 is an innocent and his specimen signature was also not obtained for handwriting expert's opinion. The evidence of P.W.8 has proved that what is the procedure to be adopted as soon as they received the application for cement permit. But all the public servants, who are Assistants and Junior Assistants were acquitted. Even Ahmed Sherif, who was the Tahsildar, since died, the charges against him were abated. Hence, the appellants/A6 & A7 ought to have acquitted by the Special Court. There is no nexus between the appellants/A6 & A7 and the commission of the offence and the Special Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants. Hence, she prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against A6 and A7. 11. Resisting the same, Mr. R.Prathap Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the appellants/A4, A6 & A7 and the other Government servants were conspired themselves and created bogus documents and on that basis only, cement permit to the tune of 607 tonnes has been released. 11. Resisting the same, Mr. R.Prathap Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the appellants/A4, A6 & A7 and the other Government servants were conspired themselves and created bogus documents and on that basis only, cement permit to the tune of 607 tonnes has been released. The Special Court has considered this aspect and convicted the appellants A4, A6 and A7. The appellants are not solely convicted on the basis of the statement given by P.W.10-Approver and it was also corroborated by the other convincing circumstances and exhibits. A4 in connivance with the other accused cheated the Government to part with the cement wherein he was not legally entitled to get and profited himself by selling it in the open market and thus deprived the persons who genuinely required the cement and the same was sold in the open market at a higher price. Hence, the conviction against A4 is liable to be confirmed. It is further submitted that A6 and A7 are convicted on the basis of the report given by the handwriting expert and also considered the evidence of an approver/P.W.10 and their evidence have also been corroborated. Hence, there is no reason for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record. 13. It is well settled principle of law that handwriting expert's opinion alone cannot be a basis for the conviction and corroboration is necessary. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for A4 relied upon the decision reported in (1977) 2 SCC 210 (Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab). In the citation, it was held that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. There is no quarrel over the proposition laid down in the above decision. It is appropriate to incorporate some portions in para-7 of the above decision, which reads as follows: "7. .. .. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. There is no quarrel over the proposition laid down in the above decision. It is appropriate to incorporate some portions in para-7 of the above decision, which reads as follows: "7. .. .. It is true that B.Lal, the handwriting expert, deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway receipt Ex.PW10/A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwritings Ex.PW27/37 to 27/57, that is the appellant, but we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. That it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee where it was pointed out by this Court that experts evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary. Value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American Courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands(5) and Matter of Alfred Foster's Will. The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case: Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship--Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil. We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself from the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence." While considering the above decision along with the available materials, the expert's opinion is not a substantial evidence. 14. While perusing Ex.P910-Handwriting expert's opinion, in para-5, it was stated as follows: "5. Each of the present red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Q.309, Q.345, Q.492, Q.510 and Q.607 has been made after mechanically erasing the previous signature which could not be deciphered. On the basis of the present material, it is not possible to express any opinion on the other points. The reasoning sheets are enclosed." But it is pertinent to note that there is no admitted evidence to show that specimen signatures of the appellants/A4, A6 and A7 were obtained in accordance with law. Furthermore, some of the applicants were examined as P.W.11, 12, 13, 16 to 22, 25 and 26. But their specimen signatures were neither obtained nor sent for handwriting expert's opinion. The applicants have stated that they approached A4/appellant for preparing plan and some of the witnesses would depose that they made a construction in accordance with plan and some would depose that they made a construction, which is contrary to the plan. But all the witnesses categorically stated that they purchased cement in the open market. In such circumstances, it is the bound and duty of the investigating officer to obtain signature of the persons concerned and sent for handwriting expert's opinion. Furthermore, there is no final opinion given by the Expert. But all the witnesses categorically stated that they purchased cement in the open market. In such circumstances, it is the bound and duty of the investigating officer to obtain signature of the persons concerned and sent for handwriting expert's opinion. Furthermore, there is no final opinion given by the Expert. In such circumstances, I am of the view, Ex.P910-Expert's opinion is not a basis for convicting the accused. 15. The learned Amicus curiae appearing for A4 would submit that Mr. T.T.V.Raman, the D.S.P., who registered a case and investigated the same, obtained writings and specimen signature of A4, but he was not examined before the Court. There is no possibility for examination of Mr. T.T.V.Raman, since he was died. P.W.35/Periasamy was examined, who is well acquaintance with the signatures and writings of the deceased Mr. T.T.V.Raman, D.S.P. Hence, non-examination of Mr. T.T.V. Raman was not a fatal to the case of the prosecution. 16. Further, he submitted that there was a delay in according sanction for prosecuting the accused. It will no way affect the case of the accused/appellants herein, since they are neither public servants nor Government servants, sanction is not necessary for prosecuting them. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned Amicus curiae that the delay in according sanction is fatal to the case of the prosecution does not merit acceptance. 17. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that there was a delay in preferring F.I.R., as the case was registered only on 17.09.1982, but the occurrence was taken place during the period from November 1980 to April 1981. It is to be noted that 114 files relating to issuance of cement permit have been perused. Considering the nature of the offence, the delay in preferring the complaint is no way affect the case of the prosecution. 18. Now this Court has to decide that whether the evidence of P.W.10-Approver is in admissible evidence? At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by Mr. R.Prathap Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), reported in AIR 1988 SC 672 (Ranjeet Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan). In the citation, it was held that the Approver's evidence is reliable provided it must be corroborated either by direct evidence or by indirect evidence. The corroboration even by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. R.Prathap Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), reported in AIR 1988 SC 672 (Ranjeet Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan). In the citation, it was held that the Approver's evidence is reliable provided it must be corroborated either by direct evidence or by indirect evidence. The corroboration even by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. But such evidence as to corroboration must be independent and must not be vague or unreliable. Now it is appropriate to incorporate para-8 of the aforesaid decision, which is stated as follows: "8. We may also point out that while looking for corroboration, we must first look at the broad spectrum of the approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of the corroboration may depend upon the facts of each case. The corroboration need not be of any direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. The corroboration even by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. But such evidence as to corroboration must be independent and must not be vague or unreliable." 19. Now this Court has to decide that whether the evidence of P.W.10-Approver is corroborated by any other evidence. It is pertinent to note that the Special Court has disbelieved the evidence of approver in respect of A1 to A3, who are the Assistant and Junior Assistants in Tahsildar Office and who are responsible for issuance of cement permit, were acquitted from the charges levelled against them, including the charge under Section 120B IPC. Once portion of approver's evidence has been disbelieved, the Special Court ought to have disbelieved the entire approver's evidence. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider para-23 of the Special Court's judgment. The learned Special Judge in para-23 of its Judgment, stated that since A1/Balakrishnan was relieved from Coimbatore Tahsildar office on 22.1.1981 itself, it is not possible for him to receive Rs.500/- in the end of the month of February or first week of March and hence, it is unbelievable. While considering Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 and his deposition, there is a contradiction in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 under Ex.P292 is a contradictory to the evidence given by P.W.10 before the Special Court. While considering Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 and his deposition, there is a contradiction in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 under Ex.P292 is a contradictory to the evidence given by P.W.10 before the Special Court. So the Special Court has considered the same and disbelieved some portions of the evidence given by P.W.10. While considering the Latin Maxim, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: A maxim meaning false in one thing, false in all", the Special Court ought to have accepted the entire evidence of P.W.10 as trustworthy or rejected entire evidence of P.W.10 as not trustworthy. Per contra, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.10/approver in respect of A1 to A3, who are Government servants/public servants, but accepted the evidence of P.W.10 in respect of individual/independent (i.e.) appellants/A4, A6 and A7, who are neither public servants nor Government servants. So in my opinion, the Special Court erroneously accepted the evidence of P.W.10/approver in piecemeal. Since there is a contradiction between Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10/approver recorded by the learned Magistrate and the evidence of P.W.10/approver before the Court, I am of the view, the evidence of P.W.10/approver is not trustworthy and hence, it is not reliable. 20. A4/R.Subramaniam, who is a Civil Engineer, prepared a plan. While advancing his arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for A4 would take me through the evidence of P.W.11, P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26. While considering their evidence, A4 did not sign the applications for issuance of cement permit. 21. P.W.11-Ranganathan, in his chief-examination, stated that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house. A4 prepared a plan and gave four copies to P.W.11 and that plan was marked as Ex.P294. P.W.11 further stated that he had not filed any applications for cement permit before the Tahsildar Office, Coimbatore. In his cross-examination, he stated that he obtained loan from Coimbatore Co-operative Society for constructing the house to the tune of Rs.30,000/-and then he made a construction. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he has submitted a plan, which was drawn by A4/R.Subramaniam before the said Society for obtaining loan. He denied a suggestion which was posed to him that the plan contained his signature. 22. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he has submitted a plan, which was drawn by A4/R.Subramaniam before the said Society for obtaining loan. He denied a suggestion which was posed to him that the plan contained his signature. 22. P.W.14-one Palanivel deposed that he has given a certificate in respect of iron and cement for five or six times to A4. 23. P.W.16-Rajagopal, in his chief-examination, stated that he obtained loan for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for construction of his house. He also obtained approved plan (i.e.) Ex.P299. But he stated that he did not put his signature in that plan. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he constructed the house in accordance with the plan. He obtained cement permit from Tahsildar after getting permission and then he made a construction. 24. P.W.17-Shanmugam, in his chief-examination, stated that he approached A4 for drawing plan. A4 prepared Ex.P300-plan and the same was approved by Corporation. But he stated that the signature in that plan was not belonged to him. He further stated that he had not obtained cement permit from Tahsildar and he had not constructed the house as per the plan under Ex.P300. But in his cross-examination, he stated that since his plan has not been approved by Corporation, he was unable to obtain cement permit. He further deposed that he had not taken any steps to obtain cement permit through P.W.10. He denied the suggestion which was posed to him that he obtained the plan for construction of larger extent, but he constructed only a small house. 25. P.W.18-Devaraj deposed that he constructed a house and the plan prepared by A4/R.Subramaniam was marked as Ex.P301. But he stated that the signature in the plan is not belonged to him. 26. P.W.19-Rayappa Gounder deposed that after getting permission from the Municipality, he made a construction according to the approved plan prepared by A4/R.Subramaniam and he made a construction by purchasing cement in the open market. Further, he deposed that the signature in Ex.P302-Plan is not belonged to him. 27. P.W.20-Mr. Velusamy deposed that A4 prepared a plan for construction of house. Initially, the Corporation did not give approval and later, he obtained permission and the plans were marked as Exs.P93 and P303. But he stated that the signature in Ex.P303 is not belonging to him. 28. 27. P.W.20-Mr. Velusamy deposed that A4 prepared a plan for construction of house. Initially, the Corporation did not give approval and later, he obtained permission and the plans were marked as Exs.P93 and P303. But he stated that the signature in Ex.P303 is not belonging to him. 28. P.W.21-P.K.Ramasamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house. Through him, no document has been marked. 29. P.W.22-Muthusamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan and the plan was marked as Ex.P304 and he made a construction by purchasing cement from the open market. He further deposed that his address was given in the plan, but he disputed the signature in the plan. 30. P.W.25-Venkitasamy deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house. He also obtained cement permit for 220 bags (i.e.) 11 tonnes from the Tahsildar Office, Coimbatore. He further deposed that the plan was marked as Ex.P309, but the signature in that plan is not belonged to him. 31. P.W.26-R.Subramaniam deposed that he approached A4/R.Subramaniam for preparing plan for construction of his house and the plan was marked as Ex.P310. But he disputed the signature in that plan. He further deposed that he constructed his house in accordance with the approved plan. Since he was unable to mobilise funds from the Society, he purchased cement from the open market. In Ex.P310, it was reported that one Duraisamy put his signature. 32. P.W.31-D.K. Sivashanmugam, who is none other than the brother-in-law of A4, in his evidence, he stated that the plan for construction of building in Ex.P15 and P43 contained his signatures and that signatures were marked as Exs.P315 and P316. He further deposed that Exs.P15 and P43-plans are one and the same, as an approver he put his signature. In his cross-examination, he stated that A4/R. Subramaniam is a licensed building surveyor and he is a competent person to prepare the plan for construction of the building and therefore, no necessity to get an approval from other Engineer. 33. Considering the evidence of alleged applicants viz., P.W.11 to P.W.13, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26, it would show that they had approached A4 for preparing plan for construction of their house, but they denied the signature in the plan. Furthermore, they had deposed that they constructed the buildings by purchasing cement from the open market. 33. Considering the evidence of alleged applicants viz., P.W.11 to P.W.13, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26, it would show that they had approached A4 for preparing plan for construction of their house, but they denied the signature in the plan. Furthermore, they had deposed that they constructed the buildings by purchasing cement from the open market. Considering their evidence, A4/R. Subramaniam drew the plan as soon as the applicants approached him. It is not the duty of A4/appellant to verify that whether the applicants are the owners of the site and whether they are willing to obtain cement permit for construction of their buildings. As per the evidence of P.W.31, A4/appellant is a competent person to prepare the plan for approval and gave estimate for construction materials. In such circumstances, merely because the applicants/witnesses disputed that the plans did not contain their signatures, it will not mean that A4/R. Subramaniam put his signature. 34. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.10. In his evidence, he stated that since he was dismissed from the Mill at Coimbatore in the year 1976, he is doing some work to help the mill workers to obtain provident fund loan, marriage loan, building loan and on that basis only, he received some income. P.W.10 never stated that the applicants viz., P.W.11, 14, 16 to 22, 25 and 26 were approached him for housing loan. It shows that evidence of applicants falsifies the evidence of P.W.10. 35. P.W.6/Tahsildar, Coimbatore, was examined and he submitted Ex.P108-Report, in which, he stated that he inspected three houses, which was alleged to be constructed on the basis of cement permit issued to the applicants, but they are not residing there. Except this report, P.W.6 had not filed any supporting documents to show that those houses were not constructed by the applicants and they had not obtained cement permit. Furthermore, V.A.O. was not examined before the Court. Even though prosecution has examined P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25 & P.W.27 to P.W.30 to prove that on the basis of the cement permit given by Tahsildar/Ahmed Sheriff, cement has been sold to the applicants, but it is not the case that they sold the same to the appellants/A4, A6 and A7. 36. Furthermore, V.A.O. was not examined before the Court. Even though prosecution has examined P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25 & P.W.27 to P.W.30 to prove that on the basis of the cement permit given by Tahsildar/Ahmed Sheriff, cement has been sold to the applicants, but it is not the case that they sold the same to the appellants/A4, A6 and A7. 36. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3, who was working as Tahsildar, Coimbatore, deposed that District Collector of Coimbatore issued Ex.P5-circular, which contains the procedures for issuing cement permit. He also deposed that what is the procedure to be adopted for obtaining cement permit. As per his evidence, Tahsildar is a competent person to verify the applications sought for cement permit and if he is having any doubt over the applications, he may very well reject the same. 37. P.W.8-Srinivasan, who was the retired Deputy Tahsildar, in his cross-examination, fairly conceded that if the applications for cement permit have not contained any relevant documents, those applications have been returned and the applications, which are accepted alone have been registered in the Register for application. While perusing the evidence of P.W.8, it shows that the Tahsildar/Ahmed Sherif and A1, A2 & A3, who are Assistant and Junior Assistants respectively working under the Tahsildar/Ahmed Sheriff, are the competent persons to scrutinise the applications and if they found any defects, they can return those applications and if it is resubmitted, it should be placed before the Tahsildar again. In such circumstances, as per the evidence of witnesses viz., P.W.11 to P.W.13, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26, they disputed the signatures in the files under Exs.P10 to P95. It is to be noted that neither the Tahsildar/Ahmed Sheriff nor A1 to A3 returned the applications, but they issued cement permit. However, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 38. One more adding circumstance is that P.W.20- Velusamy in his evidence, he deposed that he approached A4/R. Subramaniam for preparing the plan and the plan was marked as Ex.P303. But he stated that he had not put his signature in that plan. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he requested A4/R. Subramaniam to prepare three plans and according to that plans, he constructed his building. But he stated that he had not put his signature in that plan. In his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that he requested A4/R. Subramaniam to prepare three plans and according to that plans, he constructed his building. So considering the entire evidence, I am of the view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A4/R. Subramaniam conspiring with other accused, committed the offence by preparing forged documents and used them as genuine and with dishonest intention cheated the Government by obtaining cement permit in fair price and caused loss to the Government. 39. P.W.32-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, recorded the statements of P.W.10-Ramasamy, an approver, for giving tender of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and in his evidence, he stated that A4 has been known to him since 1976 onwards and if the workers want to obtain house loan, they approach A4 to prepare the plan for construction of house and thereafter, he approached concerned authority for obtaining loan. As already stated that witnesses/applicants had stated that they alone approached A4 for preparing plan for construction of their buildings. But the evidence of P.W.10/approver has been falsified by the evidence of other witnesses viz., P.W.11 to P.W.13, P.W.16 to P.W.22, P.W.25 and P.W.26. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the evidence of approver is not trustworthy and hence, it is not reliable. 40. On perusal of Ex.P292, a requisition was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, for recording confession of P.W.10/Ramasamy, s/o Narayanasamy, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that has been forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, for compliance. The approver's statement has been recorded and tender of pardon has been given by P.W.32 under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and the related documents were marked as Ex.P293. While perusing the statement of P.W.10 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with his deposition before the Court, it shows that the deposition of P.W.10 is an improved version of his statement. The Special Court has disbelieved the statement of the approver in respect of A1 to A3 alone and acquitted them. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the approver's statement is not trustworthy and hence, it is not reliable. Furthermore, the evidence of handwriting Expert/P.W.34 is not corroborated by any other witnesses and no concrete opinion has been given by P.W.34. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the approver's statement is not trustworthy and hence, it is not reliable. Furthermore, the evidence of handwriting Expert/P.W.34 is not corroborated by any other witnesses and no concrete opinion has been given by P.W.34. Therefore, I am of the view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that A4/R. Subramaniam, who alleged to be drew the plan, conspiring with other accused, prepared the forged documents and used them as original documents and cheated the Government and caused loss to the Government, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Special Court committed an error in convicting A4/R. Subramaniam for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 465 and 471 IPC. 41. In respect of A6/P. Subramaniam and A7/Arumugam, learned counsel Mrs. C. Sangamithirai would submit that in the judgment itself, the Special Court held that signatures of A6 and A7 were not obtained for handwriting expert's opinion. But the learned Special Judge considering the evidence of P.W.10/approver, convicted them. She further submitted that even though learned Special Judge held that expert's opinion has proved that the signatures of A4, A6 and A7 are tallied with the disputed signatures, as already stated that as per the dictum of the Apex Court, expert's opinion is not a substantial piece of evidence and it needs corroboration. But, admittedly, no convincing evidence for corroborating expert's opinion and the evidence of P.W.10, who is an approver. The approver's statement under Ex.P292 is contradicted with his evidence before the Court and it is the improved version. However, it is pertinent to note that A6 and A7/appellants are disputed that they never furnished their specimen signatures and writings. As per the dictum of the Apex Court, handwriting expert's opinion is not a substantial piece of evidence. Therefore, handwriting expert's opinion is not a basis for conviction. Furthermore, there is no clinching and concrete evidence for convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC, 465 and 471 IPC. But as already stated that P.W.3 deposed the procedures to be adopted for granting of cement permit and the Tahsildar and A1 to A3 are the competent persons to reject the applications, which sought for cement permit, but they are not verified the same. But the charges against the Tahsildar was abated, since he was died and A1 to A3 were acquitted. But the charges against the Tahsildar was abated, since he was died and A1 to A3 were acquitted. Here, except public servants/ Government servants, other accused alone have been convicted on the basis of the approver's statement. 42. The learned Special Judge in para-20 and 24 of its Judgment, disbelieved the evidence of P.W.10 in respect of A1 to A3 and acquitted them. In para-24 of the judgment, it was specifically stated as follows: @ (TAMIL) @ So the learned Special Judge held that since there is a contradiction between Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 and his deposition, disbelieved the statement of P.W.10 in respect of A1 to A3. But the learned Special Judge cannot be disbelieved the evidence of P.W.10 in respect of other accused, who are neither public servants nor Government servants. Since the evidence of P.W.10/approver is rejected, there is no convincing and concrete evidence for convicting the accused. So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused are guilty of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, benefit of doubt is given in favour of the appellants/A4, A6 & A7 and they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Hence, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court in respect of A4, A6 and A7 is hereby set aside. 43. In fine, * Criminal Appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.1998, made in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 1990, on the file of the Special Court-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Coimbatore. * Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. * The appellants/A4, A6 and A7 are acquitted of the charges. * Bail bonds, if executed by the appellants/A4, A6 and A7, shall stand cancelled. * The fine amount, if paid by the appellants/A4, A6 and A7, shall be refunded to them.