Judgment :- The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-The defacto complainant, one Rathinam had a savings bank account at Canara Bank, R.S.Puram, and his account number was 1480. On 23.09.1998, the first accused, viz., Nehru S/o.Rangan had withdrawn a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the defacto complainant's bank account by cheque No.136025 which belongs to the said account holder. The accused forged the signature of the defacto complainant and had withdrawn the said amount, for which, the accused, 2, 3 and 4 colluded with him for encashment of the said cheque. Hence, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against all the accused before the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Coimbatore and the said complaint has been registered in Crime No.4 of 1999, against the first accused for the offence under Sections 467 r/w 471 and 420 of IPC and against the accused 2, 3 and 4, for the offence under Section 467 r/w 109 of IPC. 2. The Inspector of Police had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Coimbatore and the said case was numbered as C.C.No.258 of 2003. After serving a copy of this charge sheet, all the accused had pleaded not guilty and hence the case has been proceeded with. 3. On the side of the prosecution, five witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9, viz., cheque, specimen signature of the defacto complainant, another cheque, challan, account opening form, share holders certificate, complaint, finger print certificate and the F.I.R. No material objects were produced. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and one document was marked as Ex.R1., i.e., letter. No material object was produced. 4. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is the Senior Manager attached to the Canara Bank. He deposed that the defacto complainant, Rathinam has a savings bank account in S.B.No.1480, in his bank. He deposed that on 23.09.1998, a sum of Rs.45,000/-had been withdrawn from the defacto complainant's account. In this connection, the defacto complainant had made a complaint in the month of October 1998 stating that he had not signed the cheque and that the first accused had stolen the cheque leaf from his house and forged his signature and as such, the first accused had withdrawn the said amount fraudulently. In this connection, the defacto complainant had made a complaint in the month of October 1998 stating that he had not signed the cheque and that the first accused had stolen the cheque leaf from his house and forged his signature and as such, the first accused had withdrawn the said amount fraudulently. P.W.1 further stated that he had verified the signature of the said cheque and the specimen signature of the defacto complainant and it did not tally with one another. The said cheque had been presented in the account of Poornima Investment current account bearing No.17/142. On the very same date, Poornima Investment had issued a cheque bearing No.599840 in favour of the first accused for the said amount. The second accused who is operating the account on behalf of Poornima Investment denied that she has no connection with the said transaction. Therefore, the case has been levelled against the accused. Further the signature in the said disputed cheque and the A-2's specimen signature was compared and found tallying. 5. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that in the month of May 1998, he went to his native place to maintain his agricultural land and handed over his house key to his brother-in-law Mohanasundaram. On 15.10.1998, he returned back to his house and opened the cupboard, wherein he found that his landed property documents, share certificate, bank pass books and cheque books were scattered here and there. On suspicion, he enquired with his brother-in-law, who informed him that his servant, i.e, first accused had collected the key from them and he enquired with A-1, but he did not give a proper answer. He had deposed that on checking his cheque book, he had found that a cheque leaf was missing. Thereafter, he verified with the bank and found that his signature was forged and a sum of Rs.45,000/- withdrawn. 6. P.W.3, who is an Assistant Director attached to the Forensic Science Department had adduced evidence that on the request of the learned Judicial Magistrate to verify the signature in the cheque and the specimen signature of the accused. He had found that the signature in the cheque has not tallied with the specimen signature and he certified accordingly. 7. P.W.4, the Assistant Commissioner had adduced evidence that on the strength of P.W.1's complaint, a F.I.R. had been registered and statement also was collected from P.W.1. He had found that the signature in the cheque has not tallied with the specimen signature and he certified accordingly. 7. P.W.4, the Assistant Commissioner had adduced evidence that on the strength of P.W.1's complaint, a F.I.R. had been registered and statement also was collected from P.W.1. On 04.05.2000, at about 5 p.m., the accused had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, the seized document was sent to the Forensic Science Department through Court. 8 .P.W.5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken the case for further investigation and after the investigation a charge sheet has been filed. Supporting the prosecuting evidence, the above documents had been marked. 9. R.W.1, the Bank Manager attached to the Canara Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, had adduced evidence that he had lodged a complaint against the four accused and at that time, all the accused had remitted the said amount fraudulently encashed. He deposed that he had written a letter to the enquiry officer, requesting him not to take any further action against the said accused by way of written letter. 10. On considering the evidence of both sides and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate had observed that the second accused had presented the cheque which had been issued by the first accused and knowing the same, the second accused abetted with the first accused as such, the second accused committed an offence under Section 467 r/w 109 of IPC and that the first accused had committed an offence under Section 467, 420 of IPC. Hence, the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 467; in default he was to undergo another two months simple imprisonment; The first accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 420 of IPC, and the second accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default she was to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the accused was to run concurrently. The first accused has to undergo the sentence concurrently. The learned trial Court judge, on observing that the first accused had been confined to judicial custody from 05.05.2000 to 24.07.2000, ordered that this period should be deducted from the sentence period. 11. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the accused was to run concurrently. The first accused has to undergo the sentence concurrently. The learned trial Court judge, on observing that the first accused had been confined to judicial custody from 05.05.2000 to 24.07.2000, ordered that this period should be deducted from the sentence period. 11. Against the said conviction and sentence, both accused have filed appeal Nos.69 of 2007 and 77 of 2007 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the trial Court conviction and sentence, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the trial Court's order. 12. Against the said dismissal of the appeal, the first accused has filed the above revision. 13. The highly competent counsel argued that the respondent/police had registered the criminal case against the four accused persons. Subsequently, the prosecution case has been proceeded with A-1 and A-2,therefore, the prosecution case is a foisted one as a prima facie case has not been made out. R.W.1-Bank Manager, had further stated that the entire cheque amount of a sum of Rs.45,000/- had been remitted to the credit of the defacto complainant's account. As such, the entire prosecution case has become infructuous. Subsequently, the case has been tried before the trial Court, hence, the concurrent findings of both Courts is not sustainable under law. No eye-witness had been examined to show that the cheque had been stolen by A-1 from the defacto complainant's house. The prime witness viz., one Mohanasundarn, who is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant was not examined as a necessary witness. The main allegation against A-1 is that he had collected the house key of P.W.2. from the said Mohanasundaram and therefore, the said Mohanasundaram is the necessary witness and as such, there is a lacuna arising from the judgment. Therefore, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to acquit the accused. 14. Mr.C.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the entire prosecution case has been decided on the basis of documentary fact and relevant witnesses. The accused who forged the signature of P.W.2 had defrauded a sum of Rs.45,000/- after stealing the cheque from the house of P.W.1. Therefore, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to acquit the accused. 14. Mr.C.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the entire prosecution case has been decided on the basis of documentary fact and relevant witnesses. The accused who forged the signature of P.W.2 had defrauded a sum of Rs.45,000/- after stealing the cheque from the house of P.W.1. The signature was also sent for the opinion of the Forensic Department and the Department clearly stated that the signature on the cheque and the specimen signature of P.W.2 are not found to tally. Further, in order to prove the prosecution case, the bank manager was examined, who is the prime witness in the instant case. The accused had remitted the said amount into the account of P.W.2 only after defrauding the complainant and as such, the accused had admitted his guilt. Therefore, there is no lacuna in this case. Once the accused himself admitted his guilt, subsequently, the accused cannot challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The said Mohanasundaram, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.2 is not a necessary witness since he had not played any part in the fraudulent cheque transaction. In order to prove the fraud, the bank official's evidence and the evidence of Forensic Science Department are substantive and hence, highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the revision. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused had spent about 80 days in jail and also paid a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the accused is the only breadwinner of the family and involved in the labour work and his family members are totally depending upon the income of the accused and his conduct and character is good as of date and therefore, the very competent counsel requests this Court to treat him leniently. 16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the judgment and conviction of the Courts below, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding the accused being found guilty. This Court is of the further view that the prosecution had established their case beyond doubt on the basis of relevant records and necessary witnesses. This Court is of the further view that the prosecution had established their case beyond doubt on the basis of relevant records and necessary witnesses. Supporting this case, the Forensic Science Department's report had been fully supportive of the prosecution case and therefore, there is no lacuna in the judgment and conviction of the Courts below. This Court's further view that the said cheque amount of a sum of R.45,000/- had been transferred to A-2 bank account and in turn A-2 had issued cheque for the same amount in favour of A-1 and A-1 encashed the said cheque. The same has been proved through bank records, therefore, the prosecution case circuit is completed. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had spent 80 days in prison and that the accused is working as a manual labourer and also considering that his entire family members depend upon his income and support, this Court is of the view that the punishment already undergone by the accused is adequate punishment for the offence committed by him and hence, waives the rest of the sentence imposed on him and the accused is set free. 17. In the result, the above revision is dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.69 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, dated 20.06.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.258 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Coimbatore, dated 01.02.2007, is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.