JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401, read with Section 394, Cr.P.C. by the wife of deceased accused Rajendra Kumar, Smt. Krishna Devi, in which, the judgment dated 5.8.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur in Criminal Case No. 198/1980 accused deceased Rajendra Kumar was convicted for offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences and pay fine of Rs. 100/- in respect of each offence, so also, judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar (Camp Srikaranpur) dated 15.7.1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60/1992 whereby appellate Court affirmed the judgment dated 5.8.1991. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tehsildar (Revenue), Srikaranpur filed a complaint as per direction of the District Collector, Sriganganagar in Police Station, Srikaranpur on 19.10.1979, upon which, an F.I.R. No. 82/1989 was registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474, I.P.C. As per allegation levelled in the complaint, the accused late Rajendra Kumar who was working as Patwari drew amounts of Rs. 775/- and Rs. 8,519/- by preparing bills of arrears and fixation of pay on the basis of letter Ex.P-2 dated 2.3.1979, issued by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, under which the deceased accused Rajendra Kumar got financial benefits, was a fabricated document and, on that basis, while preparing two documents, the amounts were withdrawn by him while working on the post of Patwari. 3. After investigation, it was found that letter Ex.P-2 was not issued by the Board of Revenue under signature of Ganpat Singh and the said document was fabricated by the accused for taking benefit of increment and fixation of pay. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474, I.P.C. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to conduct the trial and, for that purpose, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and, after completion of trial, statement of accused late Rajendra Kumar was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but no evidence was produced by the accused in his defence. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to decide the matter finally and vide judgment dated 5.8.1991 accused late Rajendra Kumar was convicted by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Srikaranpur and sentenced for two years simple imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 100/- for each offence. 4. Against the judgment passed by the trial Court, an appeal was prepared before the District Judge, Sriganganagar which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar (Camp Srikaranpur) and vide judgment dated 15.7.1992 the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by late Rajendra Kumar and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. 5. In this revision petition, both the judgments are under challenge. It is worthwhile to observe here that accused Rajendra Kumar died on 29.9.1991 during pendency of the appeal and, in appeal, widow of late Rajendra Kumar, Smt. Krishna Devi filed an application under Section 394, Cr.P.C. by which it was prayed that the appeal may be decided on merit. The application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi was accepted by the appellate Court while allowed the prayer for continuance of hearing of the appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both trial Court and appellate Court committed gross error while convicting the deceased accused Rajendra Kumar for offences charged because the prosecution has not proved the case. The Basic argument is that the dispatch register of the Board of Revenue is not produced before the Court to prove the fact that so called alleged fabricated document was not forwarded by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, in absence of the said record the finding has wrongly been given by the trial Court that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that letter Ex.P-2 is fabricated document. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hand-writing expert was examined but his evidence was not an evidence over which any reliance can be placed to show that signature which were found in the letters issued by the Board of Revenue were made by accused Rajendra Kumar, therefore, in absence of any finding, it cannot be said that Rajendra Kumar fabricated the said document. Both the Courts below did not understand the report given by the expert, therefore, it is a case of clear misreading of the report for the purpose of convicting the accused deceased Rajendra Kumar. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that where the report is not clear to arrive at any definite finding or conclusion which was essential for the trial Court, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The controversy involved in this case is whether letter Ex.P-2 was issued by the Board of Revenue or not. For that purpose, the prosecution has tried to prove that letter Ex.P-2 does not contain the signature of Ganpat Singh but it has not been proved that letter Ex.P-2 was dispatched from the Board of Revenue or not because the dispatch registered was not produced before the Court, therefore, the trial Court has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that letter in question was not issued by Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if it is proved that letter Ex.P-2 is not a genuine letter that would not make deceased Rajendra Kumar an accused of the offence for which allegation is levelled against him. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is not brought out that any fabrication has been done by accused Rajendra Kumar knowingly and the same is fabricated by him, therefore, in absence of both the ingredients of the offence it cannot be said that deceased accused Rajendra Kumar committed an offence for which he is liable to be punished. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that launching of criminal proceedings on the basis of the letter is absolutely contrary to law and further whatever evidence is let it cannot be said that any case has been proved by the prosecution against deceased accused Rajendra Kumar. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has grossly erred to base the conviction solely on the ground of testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 who refused to accept that letter Ex.P-2 bears his signature, therefore, at the strength of argument it is proved that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that accused Rajendra Kumar got the benefits under letter Ex.P-2 purportedly sent by the Board of Revenue and he himself prepared the bills of arrears and fixation, therefore, it cannot be said that Rajendra Kumar was innocent and was not knowing that letter Ex.P-2 was received from the Board of Revenue or not. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no dispute' with regard to the fact that accused Rajendra Kumar was working on the post of Patwari and he himself prepared both the bills to get benefit and further signatures of both Ganpat Singh and accused Rajendra Kumar were obtained for examination by the hand-writing expert and, as per examination of the hand-writing expert, it is found that there are some similarities in the signatures marked S-49, S-96 and B-1 to B-4 and Q-1, however, definite opinion is not possible on the basis of material at hand. It is further observed that writing and signature marked S-1 to S-48 and S-97 to S-120, and B-1 to B-4 and Q-2 to Q-8 have been written by one and the same person, meaning thereby, as per the expert's reports there were similarities of signature of petitioner and signature upon disputed document Ex.P-2, therefore, it is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that so as to get the benefits of fixation of pay and house-rent the accused-petitioner prepared those documents and, thereafter, further prepared the bills to draw the amounts on the basis of fabricated documents and, ultimately, he withdrew the amounts. This fact itself is sufficient to prove that accused Rajendra Kumar was rightly convicted by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record. The trial Court as well as appellate Court thoroughly discussed the entire evidence in right perspective and gave finding that so called document Ex.P-2 dated 2.3.1979, which is said to be issued by the Board of Revenue under the Signature of "Ganpat Singh" was fabricated by the deceased accused Rajendra Kuamr to get the aforesaid benefits. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he has drawn the amounts as per the order to Tehsildar is fallacious. Hence, it is prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 13. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he has drawn the amounts as per the order to Tehsildar is fallacious. Hence, it is prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 13. Upon perusal of the record, first of all, it is revealed that deceased accused Rajandra Kumar accepted in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he has been paid the amounts in pursuance of Ex.P-2, the letter in dispute. Following statement was made by him: " QnZ Ex.P-2 jktLo e.My ls Mkd }kjk rglhynkj ds dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqvk Fkk ml le; esa ogka fjlhV DydZ FkkA mlesa ,d izfr esjs uke Hkh FkhA nwljh izfr rglhynkj dj.kiqj ds uke FkhA rglhynkj ds vkns'k ls gh eq>s Hkqxrku gqvkA eSaus dksbZ xyrh ugha dhA " meaning thereby, the precise controversy is with regard to allegation of fabrication of the document Ex.P-2, sent by the Board of Revenue bearing signature of Ganpat Singh, under which the deceased accused was granted the service benefits . To prove the charge of committing forgery against the accused, during investigation, the signatures of late accused Rajendra Kumar were obtained and signatures of Ganpat Singh were also obtained by the Investigating Officer. The other undisputed signatures of late Rajendra Kumar were also taken and sent along with the specimen signatures obtained for the purpose of determination of the authorship of the signature upon letter Ex.P-2 to the F.S.L. The said document was marked as Q-1 and sent to the hand-writing expert who gave the following result after examination: "Description of Articles" 1. Disputed signature marked Q-1 on the typed office order No. 515 dated 2.3.1979 of office of the Revenue Department, Ajmer .............1 sheet. 2. Disputed signature marked Q-2 (on pasted Revenue Stamp), writings marked Q-4 to Q-6 on a duplicate Pay Bill No. 13 dated 17.5.1979 for Rs. 755/- of Revenue Deptt., Karanpur, Shri Ganganagar ................................ ......2 Sheets 2 Extra sheets Total 4 sheets 3. Disputed signature marked Q-3 (on pasted Revenue Stamp), writings marked Q-7 to Q-9 on a duplicate Pay Bill No. 5 dated 23.4.1979 for Rs. 8519/- of Revenue Deptt., Karanpur, Shri Ganganagar .............................. ......2 Sheets + 5 Extra sheets Total 7 sheets 4. Specimen signature of Shri Ganpat Singh marked R-1 to R- 84 .......................24 sheets. 5. Disputed signature marked Q-3 (on pasted Revenue Stamp), writings marked Q-7 to Q-9 on a duplicate Pay Bill No. 5 dated 23.4.1979 for Rs. 8519/- of Revenue Deptt., Karanpur, Shri Ganganagar .............................. ......2 Sheets + 5 Extra sheets Total 7 sheets 4. Specimen signature of Shri Ganpat Singh marked R-1 to R- 84 .......................24 sheets. 5. Admitted signature of Shri Ganpat Singh marked A-1 on a typed leave application............1 sheet. 6. Specimen signatures and writings of Shri Rajender Kumar marked S-1 to S-120 .........................48 sheets. 7. Admitted writings and signature of Shri Rajender Kumar marked B-1 to B-4 an inland letter ..............1 sheet Purpose of examination Determination of authorship of disputed signature marked Q-1. Comparison of disputed signatures and writings marked Q-2 to Q-9 with the standard signature and writings marked S-1 to S-120 and B-1 to B-4. "Result of Examination" There are some similarities among the red enclosed writings stamped and marked S-49 to S-96, B-1 to B-4 and Q-1, however a definite opinion has not been possible on the basis of material at hand. 2. The red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S-1 to S-48, S-97 to S-120, B-1 to B-4 and Q-2 to Q-8 have been written by one and the same person. 3. It has not been possible to express a definite opinion on rest of the item (Q-9 partially washed)." 14. Upon perusal of the above result of examination, it is revealed that as per opinion of the F.S.L. there were some similarities upon the red enclosed stamped and marked S-14 to S-96 and B-1 to B-4 and Q-1 (which Ex.P-2 disputed document). Further, it is observed that a definite opinion has not been possible on the basis of material at hand, meaning thereby, no definite opinion was given by the hand-writing expert with regard to determination of the authorship of disputed signature to prove the allegation of forgery, but, the trial Court gave finding that accused Rajendra Kumar was benefited, therefore, it can be presumed that he has fabricated the document. 15. 15. It is settled principle that for the purpose of authorship of signature upon the disputed document, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but no confirmed opinion was given by the hand writing expert of the F.S.L. Admittedly, the dispatch register of the Board of Revenue has not been produced before the trial Court to prove the fact that the said document wan not forwarded by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, In view of the above facts it is abundantly clear that there is no material evidence on record to prove the allegation of forgery against the petitioner, therefore, presumption cannot be drawn that the petitioner accused has committed offence for the reason that he drew the benefits after preparation of bills, verified and ordered by the Tehsildar. Admittedly, the document in question was brought to the notice of the. Tehsildar concerned also and, thereafter, the amounts of Rs. 755/- and Rs. 8,519/- towards arrears and fixation of pay were drawn by the petitioner late Rajendra Kumar. 16. In this case, the allegations are levelled against the accused that he has drawn the said amounts as per orders of the Tehsildar on the basis of document Ex.P-2, letter dated 2.3.1979 which is said to be sent by the Board of Revenue for granting service benefits to late Rajendra Kumar for regular grade increments with effect from 7.8.1964. After filing the F.I.R., so called document as well as specimen signatures were sent to the hand-writing expert but, as per report Ex.P-96, no definite opinion was given by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur with regard to authorship of the signature upon the document Ex.P-2 against the accused deceased Rajendra Kumar. Only certain doubts were raised by the F.S.L. but no definite opinion was expressed, however, it appears from the finding given by the trial Court that the whole conviction is based upon the report of the F.S.L., Ex.P-96 and presumption which is not proper in criminal law. 17. Only certain doubts were raised by the F.S.L. but no definite opinion was expressed, however, it appears from the finding given by the trial Court that the whole conviction is based upon the report of the F.S.L., Ex.P-96 and presumption which is not proper in criminal law. 17. The petitioner late Rajendra Kumar was working substantively as patwari in the Revenue Department and service benefits with regard to grade increments and arrears were drawn as per order Ex.P-2 sent by the Board of Revenue under signature of the Tehsildar upon the bills and there is no evidence on record to show whether legally Rajendra Kumar was entitled to those benefits or not, but, solely on the ground that Ex.P-2, letter dated 2.3.1979 was not sent by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for extending those benefits, it is presumed that the benefits were illegally drawn by late Rajendra Kumar. In my opinion, at all, the report of the hand-writing expert was to be accepted by the trial Court, then, too, it was necessary for the trial Court to record statement of hand-writing expert of F.S.L. Jaipur who gave his opinion with regard to some similarities because there is no other corroborative evidence for presumption of forging document by the petitioner, but, without recording his statement, solely on the ground that benefits were taken by the deceased accused, the allegations are treated to be proved that the communication dated 2.3.1979, Ex.P-2 was fabricated by deceased accused Rajendra Kumar. It is not disputed in the trial by the accused that the benefits were drawn by him but it is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused late Rajendra Kumar fabricated the document Ex.P-2 received from the Board of Revenue. Therefore, merely on the basis of presumption, the trial Court and appellate Court assumed that the document was fabricated by him for the purpose of drawing the service benefits. 18. In my opinion, it is not safe to convict a person on the basis of such type of evidence because the prosecution is required to prove the allegation of forgery beyond reasonable doubt which is not proved by the prosecution in this case but the trial Court and appellate Court erroneously held accused-petitioner guilty, which is not proper. Admittedly, accused Rajendra Kumar died during the pendency of the appeal before the Addl. Admittedly, accused Rajendra Kumar died during the pendency of the appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar, therefore, his wife filed an application for continuance of appeal in which the judgment was rendered by the appellate Court on 15.7.1992. 19. I am fortified in my view by the judgment reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 2355, Mohd. Assadullah v. The State , in which, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that mere opinion of the handwriting expert would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty without corroborative evidence. Paras 10 and 12 of the judgment run as under : "10. In order to constitute forgery, the first ingredient is that the accused should have forged the document, or a part of such document. In the absence of proof of this ingredient, a person cannot be made liable for offence under Section 466, RPC. That apart, it is also incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was forged by the accused with one of the intentions mentioned in the Act. In other words, in a charge of forgery, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the document is forged by one and it was the accused who forged it. But the forgery must be definitely proved. 12. As regards the evidence of hand-writing expert, it may be pointed out that this is dangerous to come to any conclusion on a mere comparison of hand-writing. The evidence on record does not remotely connect the accused with the commission of offence of forgery in the record of the Court the accused cannot be convicted of a crime solely and entirely upon the evidence of the hand-writing expert without any corroborating evidence to support this evidence. In other words, any corroborating opinion of the expert alone cannot be made the foundation of the conviction. The opinion of the expert ordinarily cannot be accepted to prove the facts deposed by him and conviction for forgery cannot be sustained merely on evidence of handwriting expert. His evidence is not to be accepted blindly and usually required substantial corroboration. The handwriting expert's evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted as being necessary conclusive aspect when there is no other evidence to corroborate the expert. That apart, in the absence of any evidence, the accused cannot be held guilty for committing forgery of the Court record in this case." 20. The handwriting expert's evidence, therefore, cannot be accepted as being necessary conclusive aspect when there is no other evidence to corroborate the expert. That apart, in the absence of any evidence, the accused cannot be held guilty for committing forgery of the Court record in this case." 20. Reference may also be made to the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in AIR 1994 A.P. 102 , Vandavasi Karthikeya @ Krishna Murty v. S. Kamalamma & Ors. , in which, it is observed that the science of hand-writing is not an exact science unlike the science of fingerprints, and, even the experts tend to commit errors in giving their opinions on the genuineness of the signatures and hand-writing. In para 29 of the judgment, following observants are made by the Court: "...........We may also mention in this context that the science of handwriting is not an exact science unlike the science of fingerprints. Even experts tend to commit errors in giving their opinions on the genuineness of the signatures and handwriting. Even in genuine writing, at times, the pen hesitates or even stops especially when the author is under great physical or mental strain. Sometimes, it would be difficult for an expert to examine even the genuineness of different writings, each having its own individuality, but all by the same author. It requires intelligent comparison to differentiate the genuine signature from the forged one." 21. With regard to the aforesaid view, reference may also we made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1691 . In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that without examining the expert as a witness in Court, no reliance can be placed on said opinion. Paras 40 and 41 of the said judgment run as follows: "40. In Exh. 88 confession, A-4 Balu Joshi has stated that on 4.2.1995, A-3 Mukinda Thorat had handed over to him a list in which A-3 Mukinda Thorat had written down the articles to be purchased for performing the ceremony before Sagar and Dipak were killed. Later, A-4 Bahl Joshi had purchased those herbals as per the said list. In Exh. 88 confession, A-4 Balu Joshi has stated that on 4.2.1995, A-3 Mukinda Thorat had handed over to him a list in which A-3 Mukinda Thorat had written down the articles to be purchased for performing the ceremony before Sagar and Dipak were killed. Later, A-4 Bahl Joshi had purchased those herbals as per the said list. Now, it is important to note that when PW-44 Investigating Officer made a search in the house of A-4 Balu Joshi on 8.2.1995, a small book (an Almand) which contained a slip of paper inside. A few names of herbal articles were written on that slip (such as frankencese). That slip was forwarded to the handwriting expert along with the specimen handwritings collected from A-3 Mukinda Thorat for comparison. Ex.64 is the opinion forwarded by the said handwriting expert holding that the scribe who wrote the slip and the specimen manuscripts was the same. 41. Exh.64 is only the opinion of the Asstt. State Examiner of Documents. From that description alone, it cannot be gathered whether his office would fall within the purview of Section 293 of the Code. Hence, without examining the expert as a witness in Court, no reliance can be placed on Exh. 64 alone." 22. After careful examination of the entire record, it emerges that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against deceased accused Rajendra Kumar for committing offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. Moreso, in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. deceased accused Rajendra Kumar accepted that he has drawn the service benefits on the basis of the so called document Ex.P-2, but, it is not accepted by him that the document Ex.P-2 was forged document and was fabricated by him and the prosecution although led oral evidence of PW-6 Ganpat Singh and other witnesses but to prove the document Ex.P-2 there is no material on record except the F.S.L. report Ex.P-96 in which doubt is expressed by the expert, therefore, upon perusal of that report, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case with regard to alleged offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, conviction of deceased accused Rajendra Kumar for the aforesaid offences is not sustainable in law. 23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal revision petition is hereby allowed. 23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal revision petition is hereby allowed. Both the impugned judgments and order of conviction for offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. passed by the trial Court dated 5.8.1991 as well as appellate Court dated 15.7.1992 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside and late accused Rajendra Kumar is acquitted from the charge hide giving benefit of doubt.Revision allowed. *******