Judgment :- 1. Criminal Appeal arises out of the acquittal of Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2000, passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, acquitting the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) During the year 1987, the Ministry of Defence placed orders with M/S.Ashok Leyland, Madras, for the supply of Engines for Shakthiman vehicles with packing cases. In turn, Ashok Leyland has placed orders with M/S.Victory Packers and M/S.Devson Decors Private Limited/A1/first respondent herein and the contract entered into between Ashok Leyland and the first respondent was to supply 200 packing cases and the same had to be inspected by the officials of Ashok Leyland as well as by the Army Wing of defence and the wooden cases which had to be supplied by the above mentioned first respondent's firm had been manufactured according to the specifications of the Army Wing attached to the Defence Ministry and the first respondent's firm produced quality test certificate issued by National Test House, Madras, as instructed by Ashok Leyland and Defence Department. After completion of the work, the bills were duly settled. (ii) C.B.I. came to know about that the first accused and the second accused with the connivance of A3, had forged Exs.P19 and P20-Test Certificates alleged to be issued by National Test House, which had no facility to test the type of wood. But the accused/A1 & A2 had conspired with one Chandrasekaran (A3), who was an employee of National Test House and only with the help of A3, false test certificates were fabricated by them and produced before Ashok Leyland and in turn, Ashok Leyland submitted the same to the Defence Department. In the net result, the accused A1 and A2 had manufactured the packing cases with the wood of inferior quality violating the specifications of the Defence Department and by submitting the false test certificates, the accused firms induced the Government of India, Department of Defence Production to part with the money for the sub-standard and inferior quality of wooden cases and accordingly, F.I.R. has been filed under the relevant provisions. (iii) As per exchange of letters between A1/first respondent's company and Ashok Leyland under Exs.P6 to P8, purchase order has been placed under Ex.P1, dated 13.01.1988, which was issued by P.W.1, who was working as Sales Executive in Ashok Leyland, at the time of placing the order. Ashok Leyland also issued Ex.P2-letter, on March 1988 to the first respondent's company, giving specifications of the wooden box. On 06.04.1988, one Raguram who is alleged to be the Director of first accused Company has sent Ex.P3-letter to Ashok Leyland, stating that they supplied to the specifications in the manufacture of packing cases. Furthermore, on 30.03.1989, first respondent/A1 sent Ex.P4-letter to Ashok Leyland for using rubber wood for manufacturing of packing cases and that has been considered by Ashok Leyland under Ex.P5, dated 21.12.1988. As per Ex.P17-letter, dated 23.11.1988, Defence Department has rejected the request of the first respondent to use the rubber wood instead of specification of the woods mentioned in Ex.P2. That factum has been intimated to the first respondent/A1 by Ashok Leyland under Ex.P18 on 21.12.1988. (iv) P.W.6-Arumugam, a Scientific Officer, who was alleged to be the signatory of Exs.P19 and P20-test certificates and disputed the genuine try of the same. To prove that the documents under Exs.P19 and P20 are forged, they examined P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10. Since Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused/A1 to A3 under the provisions of Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC. 3. The learned trial Judge, after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from the charges levelled against them, stating that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, against which, the present appeal has been preferred by C.B.I. against A1 and A2. 4. Challenging the order of acquittal of A1 and A2, Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases appearing for the appellant would submit that admittedly, Ex.P1 is the purchase order, which has been placed by Ashok Leyland with first respondent's Company and Exs.P19 and P20-test certificates are forged documents, because the National Test House has no facility to test the type of wood. It is further submitted that the documents under Exs.P19 and P20 are related to the test reports submitted by the National Test House in respect of other Companies. With the help of A3, first respondent/A1 and second respondent/A2 have conspired together and created the forged documents (i.e.) Exs.P19 and P20. So they are guilty under Sections 120B and 468 IPC. He further submitted that A1 and A2 also produced the forged documents (i.e.) Exs.P19 and P20 as genuine documents and received amount. Hence they are guilty under Sections 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC. Even though the ingredients of Sections 120B read with 420 IPC, 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC has been made out, the trial Court not considering this aspect in a proper perspective, acquitted the accused. Hence, he prayed for an order of conviction and sentence against the first respondent/A1 and second respondent/A2 under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC, 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC. 5. Resisting the same, Mr.Sundar Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, would submit that there is no privity of contract between the respondents/A1 & A2 and Army Wing-Ministry of Defence. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that A3/Chandrasekaran was working as a staff in National Test House and with the help of him, documents under Exs.P19 and P20-test certificates were fabricated and concocted. Even A3 was acquitted from the charges, the appellant herein has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of A3. Hence there is no evidence to show that the respondents 1 and 2 herein are aware of the fact that the documents under Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents. He further submitted that neither Army Wing of Defence Department nor Ashok Leyland has given a complaint in respect of the goods supplied are sub-standard and not in accordance with the specifications mentioned under Ex.P2. There is no dis-honest intention or no one sustained wrongful loss and the respondents are not obtained wrongful gain. So the ingredients of Sections 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC has not been made out. He further submitted that the burden is heavily upon the prosecution, since the respondents were acquitted. So they have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. So the ingredients of Sections 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC has not been made out. He further submitted that the burden is heavily upon the prosecution, since the respondents were acquitted. So they have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, it can be set aside, if two views are possible, the view favouring the accused to be taken into consideration. So the trial Court has considered all the facts in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion and hence he prayed for confirming the order of acquittal. 6. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record. 7. Now this Court has to decide whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?. It is appropriate to consider that A3Chandrasekaran, who was working as a Staff in the office of National Test House, wherein Exs.P19 and P20 are alleged to be issued. But the trial Court has acquitted A3 from the charges levelled against him, however, no appeal has been preferred against him. In respect of conspiracy, as the documents alleged to be issued by A3 were not before this Court and no appeal has been preferred against A3, in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 120B IPC has not been made out. Hence, the respondents/A1 and A2 were not guilty of the offence under Section 120B IPC. So I am of the view that the trial Court is correct in held that the appellants are not guilty for the offence under Section 120B IPC. 8. The facts of the case are necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which are as follows: Ministry of Defence, Army Wing, Chennai, has placed orders for manufacturing Engines for Shakthiman vehicles with Ashok Leyland. Since Ashok Leyland has no facility for making wooden packing cases, they in turn placed orders with two companies viz., M/S. Victory Packers and M/S.Devson Decors Private Limited/A1/first respondent herein. 9. As per the letters under Exs.P6 to P8, P.W.1-who was working as Sales Executive in Ashok Leyland, at the time of placing the order, placed that purchase order. Since Ashok Leyland has no facility for making wooden packing cases, they in turn placed orders with two companies viz., M/S. Victory Packers and M/S.Devson Decors Private Limited/A1/first respondent herein. 9. As per the letters under Exs.P6 to P8, P.W.1-who was working as Sales Executive in Ashok Leyland, at the time of placing the order, placed that purchase order. In Ex.P6-letter dated 08.04.1987, it was stated in the subject as 'fabrication and supply of timber packing cases for Sakthiman Engine and the said letter has been addressed by the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent, who stating that under the 'payment terms' 30 days from the date of approval of the packing cases by Army Inspectors. In Ex.P7-letter, dated 01.09.1987, first respondent's company sent offer and quoted the rates for packing cases for engine, transportation charges, taxes, Duties, levies, terms of delivery and terms of payment. In Ex.P8-letter, dated 07.09.1987, first respondent's Company sent a letter to Ashok Leyland, in which, it was stated that to depute the representative of Ashok Leyland to inspect their facilities at Gummidipoondi in respect of machineries for the production of Sakthiman packing cases. 10. After specifying the same, Ex.P9-letter addressed by Ashok Leyland to first respondent, dated 02.12.1987, in which, it was stated that since the respondents 1 and 2 are new suppliers, it is required by the Inspectorate of vehicles that prototype boxes are manufactured and offered for inspection to their inspectors. They have specifically mentioned that they pleased to release a letter of indent for 10 Nos. packing cases which can be manufactured as proto types and offered for inspection. On acceptance of these boxes by the Inspectorate of vehicles, they shall arrange to release a bulk order. It shows that after inspecting 10 Nos. of packing cases, they will give the purchase order for bulk order. 11. As per Ex.P10-letter sent by the first respondent to Ashok Leyland, dated 11.01.1988, in which, it was stated that the first respondent sent packing cases for inspection and requesting to release the purchase order and the Test certificate issued by the National Test House, Southern Region, Tharamani, Madras, on 18.12.1987 was enclosed. After receipt of Ex.P10 only, Ex.P11-letter, dated 13.01.1988, has been issued by P.W.11-General Manager, Ashok Leyland, to the Defence Department, in which, it was stated as follows: "We would like to release the balance quantity of order for 200 Nos. After receipt of Ex.P10 only, Ex.P11-letter, dated 13.01.1988, has been issued by P.W.11-General Manager, Ashok Leyland, to the Defence Department, in which, it was stated as follows: "We would like to release the balance quantity of order for 200 Nos. packing cases on M/S. Devson Decors Pvt. Ltd. Their sample boxes have been approved by the Inspectorate of vehicles. .. .. " It shows that after satisfying the same, Ashok Leyland has issued Ex.P1-Purchase order and sent letter under Ex.P2, for specification of the wood to be used. 12. Admittedly, the purchase order has been complied with and subsequently, first respondent sent Ex.P12-letter, dated 13.02.1988, to Ashok Leyland, stating that 50 sets of packing cases are ready for inspection. As already stated above in Ex.P11, the sample boxes sent by the first respondent are approved by the Inspectorate of vehicles. Therefore, first respondent sent another letter under Ex.P14, dated 07.03.1988, along with the copy of bill towards supply of packing cases for Engines-52 Nos., requesting payment. Respondents herein sent another letter under Ex.P15, dated 19.4.1988 to Ashok Leyland that too P.W.1 requesting to release the payment. Ashok Leyland issued letter to the respondent Company on 18.05.1988, which was marked as Ex.P16, in which, it was stated as follows: "We are pleased to inform you that the quantity of the subject order is being revised from 200 Nos. to 225 Nos. Necessary modification No.22/20156, dated 28.4.1988 in original is enclosed. Kindly note that these additional 25 boxes are to be offered before 20.5.1988 for inspection." It would clearly prove that whenever the packing cases have been manufactured, before taking delivery that has been inspected by the Inspectorate of Vehicles. After verification only, Ashok Leyland had taken delivery and made payment. 13. Admittedly, respondents have supplied 225 Nos. of packing cases for Shakthiman Engines. After verification, Ashok Leyland had taken delivery and made payment, but not returned and rejected the same as if the packing cases are sub-standard or inferior in quality and not in accordance with the specification. P.W.5-Manoharan, in his evidence, he has fairly stated that he gone to the first respondent Company and inspected the sample of wood used for manufacturing packing cases. So considering his examination, it would clearly prove that there is no iota of evidence to show that the packing cases supplied by the respondents/accused 1 and 2 is contra to the specification under Ex.P2. So considering his examination, it would clearly prove that there is no iota of evidence to show that the packing cases supplied by the respondents/accused 1 and 2 is contra to the specification under Ex.P2. None of the witnesses before the trial Court has deposed that the goods supplied-packing cases manufactured by the respondents/A1 and A2 are not in accordance with the specification mentioned in Ex.P2. 14. Per contra, the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 has proved that each and every box has been inspected by the Inspectorate of Vehicles of Ashok Leyland and then only, they took delivery and made payment. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that there is no complaint either from the Ministry of Defence-Army Wing of Chennai or from Ashok Leyland stating that the wood supplied are contra to the specifications under Ex.P2 or sub-standard of wood has been used for manufacturing packing cases. In such circumstances, without any complaint from the Ministry of Defence and without any loss to the Ministry of Defence, I am constrained to hold that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Now it is appropriate to consider section 420 of IPC. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Ingredients: (1) Accused cheated the complainant. (2) Accused did so dishonestly. (3) Thereby induced the complainant: (i) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person. (ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security. But considering the evidence, no complaint has been lodged either by Ashok Leyland, who placed the purchase order or by the Ministry of Defence-Army Wing, Chennai, who received the packing cases. As per the evidence, each and every product has been tested by the Inspectorate of Vehicles, then only Ashok Leyland take delivery of the product. But considering the evidence, no complaint has been lodged either by Ashok Leyland, who placed the purchase order or by the Ministry of Defence-Army Wing, Chennai, who received the packing cases. As per the evidence, each and every product has been tested by the Inspectorate of Vehicles, then only Ashok Leyland take delivery of the product. Furthermore, as per the evidence of P.W.5-Manoharan, who was working as Chargeman, Defence Department, took the sample of the wood before manufacturing the product. In his evidence, he has stated as follows: "TAMIL" Without intimation, he gone to the first respondent's firm and taken the wood/timber used for manufacturing the packing cases. Every one has special identity to inspect the product. His candid admission is that he took the samples of wood to verify what kind of timber used for manufacturing packing cases. So there is no iota of evidence neither on the side of the Ministry of Defence nor on the side of Ashok Leyland that they were cheated dishonestly inducing the Ashok Leyland to make payment to the accused. So I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out. The trial Court has correctly held that the offence under Section 420 IPC has not been made out. 15. In respect of Section 468 IPC is concerned, whether the documents in question under Exs.P19 and P20 are forged and whether the accused forged the same. Now it is appropriate to incorporate the ingredients of Section 468 IPC, which is as follows: (i) Document in question is forged. (ii) Accused forged it. (iii) In forging he intended that it shall be used for cheating. 16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant would mainly focus upon the evidence of P.W.6, who is the authorised signatory of the documents under Exs.P19 and P20-test certificates, P.W.7-Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Director in Chemical and also as Head of the Department, National Test House, P.W.9 Sukhdeo and P.W.10-Reghunathan, who are the staff of National Test House and submitted that Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.5 along with Ex.P19-Test Certificate. P.W.5 in his examination fairly conceded that he had taken samples of timber and his identity No.N.V.231 has been mentioned in Ex.P19. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.5 along with Ex.P19-Test Certificate. P.W.5 in his examination fairly conceded that he had taken samples of timber and his identity No.N.V.231 has been mentioned in Ex.P19. But however, P.W.6 was examined on 20.04.1999 and in his examination, he never stated that he has not given any certificate. Exs.P19 and P20 has not confronted with him. He further stated that the National Test House has no facility to test the kind of the timber and it is only having the facility to test the moisture of the timber. But subsequently, P.W.6 was recalled on 08.12.1999 (i.e.) after eight months and at that time of examination only, he stated that Exs.P19 and P20 have not contained his signature. 17. P.W.7-Gopalakrishnan, in his examination, stated that none of the Test Houses in India do we have facilities to test variety of timber or species of timber during the year 1988-89. 18. P.W.8-A.K.Sarkar, a Deputy Director of Mechanical Engineering Division of National Test House was also examined, but his evidence is not helpful. P.W.9-Sukhdeo, Senior Scientist SC in Civil Engineering, National Test House, was examined and subsequently, recalled on 8.12.1999. Thereafter, he stated that Ex.P19-the certificate No.608 does not find place in Exs.P34 and P32 Registers. Ex.P20 bearing No.73 issued to Andhra Cements and it was not issued to the appellant herein. It is further stated that at the time of examination only, he has seen those documents. It shows that after chief-examination, P.W.6 and P.W.9 were recalled belatedly (i.e.) after 8 months and then only the documents under Exs.P19 and P20 were confronted with them. So no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 19. Admittedly, Exs.P19 and P20-Test Certificates were sent to Forensic Department for handwriting expert's opinion. But that Expert has not been examined. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove Exs.P19 and P20 were created and fabricated for cheating. Hence I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 468 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. So the offence under Section 471 read with 468 IPC has been failed. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the respondents 1 and 2 were aware that Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents and produced the same before Ashok Leyland. So the offence under Section 471 read with 468 IPC has been failed. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the respondents 1 and 2 were aware that Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents and produced the same before Ashok Leyland. On perusal of the records, Ex.P19-Test certificate, dated 28.03.1988, has been alleged to be sent along with Ex.P3-letter, which was sent by one Raghuram on behalf of A1, not by A2/second respondent herein. In such circumstances, the trial Court is correct in held that the respondents 1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence under Section 471 read with 468 IPC. 20. It is pertinent to note that the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases appearing for the appellant that since Ex.P19 was submitted by the accused, they were aware that the document was forged one and the same was used for cheating. But the above argument does not hold good. Ex.P3-letter was signed by one Raguram, on behalf of the first accused. But there is no evidence to show that the second accused/Jesudoss has fully aware of the fact that the documents under Exs.P19 and P20 are forged documents used for cheating Ashok Leyland and Ministry of Defence as if they are genuine documents. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant does not merit acceptance. So the documents under Exs.P1 to P23 have not been proved that the respondents 1 and 2 are guilty for the offence under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 r/w 468 & 420 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. There is no fraudulent intention on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 for illegal gain and giving illegal loss neither to Ashok Leyland nor to Ministry of defence-Army Wing of Chennai. So the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt has been given in favour of the respondents and hence acquitted the respondents/accused. So I do not find any reason warranting interference with the findings of the trial Court and hence, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. 21. So I do not find any reason warranting interference with the findings of the trial Court and hence, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. 21. In fine, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of acquittal dated 29.11.2000made in C.C.No.3709/1992 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai.