JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 30.12.2005 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in GR case No. 658 of 1993 whereby and whereunder, the accused appellant was convicted under Sections 468/471/477-A/409 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for six months for the offence committed under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further S.I. for three months for the offence committed under Section 471 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence committed under Section 477-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 468 IPC as in order to commit offence under Section 471 IPC, one is to commit offence under Section 468 IPC. 2. We have heard Mr. Kabir, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned special P.P. for the respondent-State. 3. The accused appellant while working as LDC and UDC in the Consumer Services Sub-division No. 1, Banamalipur was in-charge Head Cashier in the year 1992 and 1993 and he was entrusted with the cash amount of Rs. 11,13,355.95p as a public servant. On 23.12.1992, while he was discharging his duty as Head cashier prepared one challan bearing No. 67 dated 21.12.1992 (Ext. 25 series) for Rs. 73,196.65 P and thereafter obtained signature of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO), (P.W. 1) for depositing the same in the Govt. head at State Bank of India, TLA House Branch, Agartala and in the said capacity, he also prepared as such another challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 P. He prepared those documents in a manner with the receipt seal of the said Bank as if the amount shown in those challans were actually deposited in the Bank, but the facts remained that he did not deposit the said amount. Thus, he had forged the aforesaid two challans being challan No. 67 and 36 knowing fully well that those would be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. Thus, he had forged the aforesaid two challans being challan No. 67 and 36 knowing fully well that those would be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Electricity and also used the said forged documents as genuine knowing or having reason to belief that those documents were forged documents. 4. While the accused appellant serving as Head Cashier in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Consumer Services Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, P.W. 3 Smt. Bina Chakraborty, P.W. 4 Ranjita Dey, P.W. 5 Haripada Adhikari, Sri Swapan Acherjee, Sri Haran Aich, Sri Biswajit Roy and one Anita Roy were also working there as LDC who used to collect revenue in different counters during that period through printed receipt books and after collection of the whole day, the entire amount so collected used to deposit to the aforesaid Bina Chakraborty. She after being satisfied with regard to the used receipts used to hand over the amount so collected to the accused appellant as he was discharging his duties as Head Cashier and then the accused appellant used to keep the revenue in the chest of the office and later, on the convenient days, the revenue was deposited in the Bank through challan by him. Though the petitioner was promoted from LDC to UDC and transferred from the aforesaid office to Udaipur in the office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Division No. 4, but the said transfer order was modified and he was kept attached in the same office i.e. in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical, Consumer Services Sub-Division No 1, Banamalipur, Agartala. 5. As a procedure, prior to deposit of the amount in the Bank, the accused appellant as a Head Cashier used to prepare the challan and thereafter he obtained signature of the concerned D.D.O. in the said challan and then he used to deposit the said amount in the State Bank of India, TLA House Branch. For dealing with the same, he as a Head Cashier used to receive Rs. 150/- per month as cash allowance and other L.D.Cs used to get Rs. 100/- per month as cash allowance. For dealing with the same, he as a Head Cashier used to receive Rs. 150/- per month as cash allowance and other L.D.Cs used to get Rs. 100/- per month as cash allowance. It was also the procedure of the said office that after the challan was deposited in the Bank, the Bank also used to put its seal in a document which was known as Remittance Book showing that the amount was deposited in the Bank. The accused appellant also made false entries of the Bank on different dates in the Remittance Book to show that those amounts were deposited in the Govt. head. 6. P.W. 1, SDO, Subash Ch. Paul, on 22.4.93, lodged an ejahar with the Officer In-charge of East Agartala P.S. alleging, inter alia, that during the revenue audit of the accounts of his Sub-division by the AG, Tripura, it was pointed out that the Government money amounting to Rs. 6,00,229.45p collected from the consumers against the sale of power had not been actually deposited to the State bank of India, TLA House Branch, Agartala by the accused appellant who was entrusted for the said work and the said FIR was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 44(4)/93 under Section 409 IPC against the accused appellant and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by P.W. 14 Mukul Kr. Ghosh, Inspector, CID, Agartala against the accused appellant under Sections 167/446/471/477-A/409 IPC. 7. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and consequent thereto, charges were framed under Sections 167/446/471/474/477-A/409 IPC. Thereafter, on 28.12.1997, aforesaid charges were altered and fresh charges under Sections 167/468/471/477-A/409 IPC were framed against the accused appellant, which are as under: (i) Firstly, that you at any time on the 23rd of December, 1992 in the capacity of L.D.C./U.D.C. dealing with the cash in the office of the S.D.O. (Electrical), C.S.S. Sub-Division, Banamalipur, Agartala being the public servant prepared one challan vide No. 67, dated 21.12.92 amounting to Rs. 73,196.65 (Rupees seventy three thousand one hundred ninety six and paise sixty-five) only in a manner which you knew to be incorrect intending thereby or knowing it to be likely that, you might thereby cause injury to Government exchequer relating to the said Government office and further on 22nd January, 1993, in the capacity of Head Cashier, posted as L.D.C./U.D.C. dealing with the cash S.D.O. (Electrical) C.S.S. Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala being the public servant, prepared another challan vide No. 36 dated 19.1.93 amounting to Rs. 73,219.10 P (Rupees Seventy three thousand two hundred nineteen and paise ten) only in a manner which you knew to be incorrect intending thereby or knowing it likely that you might thereby cause injury to the Government exchequer relating to the said Govt. Office and you, thereby, committed an offence under Section 167 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. (ii) Secondly, that you at any time on 23.12.92, you forged one challan vide No. 67 dated 21.12.92 worth Rs. 73,196.65 P. (Rupees seventy three thousand one hundred ninety six and paise sixty-five) only intending that, it shall be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura Electrical C.S.S. Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala and further at any time on 22.1.93 you forged another challan vide No. 36 dated 19.1.93 worth of Rs. 73,219.10 P (Rupees seventy three thousand two hundred nineteen and paise ten) only intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating the Govt. of Tripura Electrical C.S.S. Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala and that, you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. (iii) Thirdly, that you at any time on 23.12.92 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine one challan vide No. 67 dated 21.12.92 worth Rs. 73,196.65 P (Rupees seventy three thousand one hundred ninety six and paisa sixty five) only which you knew or has reason to believe to be a forged document and further any time on 22.1.93 you fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine one challan vide No. 36 dated 19.1.93 worth of Rs. 73,196.65 P (Rupees seventy three thousand one hundred ninety six and paisa sixty five) only which you knew or has reason to believe to be a forged document and further any time on 22.1.93 you fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine one challan vide No. 36 dated 19.1.93 worth of Rs. 73,219.10 (Rupees seventy three thousand two hundred nineteen and paise ten) only which you knew or has reason to believe to be a forged document and that you, thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 471 Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. (iv) Fourthly, that you in between April, 1992 to February, 1993 at any time being public servant holding the post of U.D.C. In-charge of Head Cashier of the office of the S.D.O. (Electrical) C.S.S. Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, PS-East Agartala with intent to defraud, altered, manipulated, committed, illegally made false entry in Books of Account, Register, Ledger and Challans etc. which were under your custody being public servant and in that capacity received Rs. 11,13,355.95P (Rupees eleven lakhs thirteen thousand three hundred fifty-five and paise ninety five) only belonging to the Government of Tripura, by intentionally making false entries in the cash book, ledger etc. of the said period of the said office and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477-A of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. (v) Fifthly, that you in between April, 1992 to February, 1993 at any time being public servant holding the post of U.D.C. In-charge Head Cashier of the office of the S.D.O. (Electrical), C.S.S. Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala, P.S.-East Agartala entrusted with property worth of Rs. 11,13,395.95 P (Rupees eleven lakhs thirteen thousand three hundred ninety five and paise ninety five) only in your capacity as public servant and you committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the property by way of false entry in the cash book within the period and other records and documents etc. for making your wrongful gain and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 8. To prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses including the official witnesses and also proved some documents which have been exhibited. 9. On being prosecution evidence closed, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. 8. To prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses including the official witnesses and also proved some documents which have been exhibited. 9. On being prosecution evidence closed, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and he also in his defence examined himself as a witness. His defence case is that on 27.7.92 he was promoted to the post of UDC. In the year 1992, he was serving in the office of the SDO, Sub-Division No. 1 as LDC and on 31.1.92, he was transferred to Udaipur in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No. 4. On 23.7.92 that transfer order was modified and in cancellation of the said order, he was posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No. 1, Agartala. On that date, he joined in the said office and on 12.8.92, his service was placed under SDO, CSS Division No. 1, Agartala and the date of effect of the said order was also shown with effect from 27.7.92. 10. The plea of the accused appellant was that he worked in two offices for that period as per verbal direction of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No. 1, Agartala and the SDO, CSS Sub-Division No. 1, Agartala. The accused appellant also admitted that on 14.11.92, when he joined in the office of the SDO, Sub-Division No. 1, Agartala as cashier, he took charges from Anit Debbarma, P.W. 10. But he stated in his defence that handing over and taking over of certain cash books were prepared and both Anit and he signed in that document and as per the said charge list, he was not handed over the charge of the iron chest as well as the key of the chest and also the cash amount. Subsequently also, no order was passed to handover the charge of the key or cash as well as the key of the almirah to him. His further case is that the charge of the iron chest and the key thereof and cash amount remained with the SDO, Electrical Sub-Division No. 1, Agartala and it was the system that at the end of every working day, SDO used to visit and collect the entire amount collected by him and the SDO also used to issue receipt for that purpose. After depositing the cash amount through bank challans, the SDO used to collect challans from him and he used to keep some photocopy of the receipts from the SDO. But in one occasion, SDO did not collect one original copy of the challan from him and that was remained with him. 11. His further case is that every day, the SDO used to keep some negligible amount at his custody and the remaining amount was taken by the SDO and he kept the money in the iron chest. On the following day, the Barkandaj/Duftory Sri Nani Gopal Rudra Paul, P.W. 2, used to deposit the challans with money to the Bank and he prepared challans and the challans bore the signature of the SDO, Barkandaj and his. After depositing the money at the Bank, sometime Barkandaj, P.W. 2, and sometime, SDO, P.W. 1, himself used to hand over the challans to him. In every month, he used to prepare the monthly statement based on challans and copy of the challans required to enclose with the statement. Thereafter he placed the matter with the SDO and the SDO on being fully satisfied through verification of the challans forwarded the said statement to the Executive Engineer and at the same time, the SDO also gave a certificate in this regard. 12. From the office of the Executive Engineer, one copy was sent to A.G. Tripura. The plea of the accused appellant was that the allegations that he used to keep the money with him or used to deposit the same to the Bank through challans or he defalcated a good amount, are all false. But he admitted that the challan No. 67 and challan No. 36 were prepared by him. 13. Considering the evidence available and hearing the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty of the charges framed and thereby convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence the appeal. 14. Mr. Kabir while severely criticizing the judgment of conviction and sentence would contend that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court came to a wrong findings that the accused appellant has committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of public money amounting to Rs. 14. Mr. Kabir while severely criticizing the judgment of conviction and sentence would contend that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court came to a wrong findings that the accused appellant has committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of public money amounting to Rs. 11,13,355.95 and committed an offence under Section 468 IPC as well as 409 IPC though the prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of the cash which was sine qua non for proving an offence of defalcation. 15. He has taken us to the cross of the P.W. 1 wherein P.W. 1 has stated "There is no mentioned in the charge report, Exbt. D-1 that the key of the chest was handed over to the accused by his predecessor at the time of handing over the charge. It is not possible on my part to produce any document to prove that the key lying with the predecessor cashier of the chest was handed over to the accused at the time of handing over the charge...... Challan No. 36 and 67, Ext. 25 series, contained signatures of the accused, then Barkandaj and me and there are no challans other than those two challans of the disputed amount. All challans were similarly signed by me, the cashier and the Barkandaj. The then Barkandaj N. Paul tendered the amount of both the challans. In other challans also N. Paul, Barkandaj was the tenderer....." 16. Taking us to the aforesaid statement, Mr. Kabir would contend that it is the P.W. 2 who has tendered the money and collected the challans from the Bank alleged to have been forged and handed over the same to the accused appellant. Thus, the accused appellant did not use the challan No. 67 and 36 as forged ones. Not only that, those challans were also not found in the possession of the accused appellant. He has further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the accused appellant knew or had reason to believe that though the challans in question were the forged documents and knowing the said documents forged, the accused appellant used them. Therefore, no offence under Section 471 of the IPC is made out against accused appellant. 17. He has further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the accused appellant knew or had reason to believe that though the challans in question were the forged documents and knowing the said documents forged, the accused appellant used them. Therefore, no offence under Section 471 of the IPC is made out against accused appellant. 17. He further submits that the prosecution by way of adducing evidence could not prove that the accused appellant with an intent defrauded, destroyed or falsified the book of accounts, rather the accused appellant believed that the challan No. 67 and 36 placed before him by the P.W. 2 N. Paul who tendered the money before the Bank were true and genuine documents. Thus, no offence committed by the accused appellant under Section 477-A also. 18. He also submitted that the letter dated 24.1.94 of the handwriting expert (Exbt. 47 series) cannot be relied upon as the said handwriting expert was not examined as a witness in the court. He finally contended that the accused appellant proved his contention that it is the P.W. 2 who was entrusted with the money for depositing the same in the bank by way of adducing the evidence through Ext. D2 series, the money receipts, from which it would be evident that the P.W. 1 received the money from the accused appellant which he used to receive from time to time. 19. Mr. Chakraborty, learned special P.P. while resisting the submission of Mr. Kabir supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the cash amount collected in each day was kept in the iron chest and out of the two keys of the iron chest, one key always remained with the accused appellant and the other was with P.W. 1. He has also submitted that the challan No. 67 dated 21.12.92 amounting to Rs. 73,196.65 and challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 amounting to Rs. 73,219.10 were shown in the cash book by the accused appellant knowing fully well that the said amounts were not deposited in the bank. Thus, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentence the accused appellant. 20. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel of the parties as well as the findings of the learned trial Court, it would be proper on our part to re-appreciate the evidence on record and thus we are visiting the evidence on record. 21. Thus, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentence the accused appellant. 20. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel of the parties as well as the findings of the learned trial Court, it would be proper on our part to re-appreciate the evidence on record and thus we are visiting the evidence on record. 21. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused appellant was admittedly cashier in-charge of the Sub-division at the relevant time and it also appears that the prosecution has produced so many documents like preliminary objection slip, challan register, cash book and its entry, remittance register, scrawl book, seizure lists etc. and mainly relied upon on the evidence of P.W. 1, Subhash Ch. Paul, S.D.O., P.W. 2 Nani Gopal Rudrapaul who is one of the signatories in the challans and tenderer of the amount, P. W. 3 Smt. Bina Chakraborty, who collected the revenue relating to the consumers' bills through different counters and handed over the same to the head cashier, the accused appellant, P.W. 8 Sri Devi Deb Barma, who was the cashier-cum-clerk of the State Bank of India, TLA House Branch and P.W. 10, Sri Anit Deb Barma, the former head casher. Therefore, it would be proper on our part to discuss the evidence of those witnesses in brief. 22. P.W. 1 Sri Subhash Ch. Paul was the SDO of CSS Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala and also the informant, who deposed that the main task of his sub-division was collection of electrical bills being revenue and replacement of defective energy meters against malpractices and complaints, spot enquiry against allegations and any dispute relating to electrical bills and settlement thereof and collection of the amount received from the consumers through six counters. The amount collected having been deposited to the Head Cashier, he used to verify the accounts, made note on the over leaf of any of the used money receipt book and on the amount of total collection with break up collected through cash and cheque. The total collected amount along with break up used to be recorded in the cash register. Thereafter, he used to prepare the treasury challan on the basis of challan register which was prepared earlier by the Head Cashier. The money receipt used to be opened with the signature of him and Head Cashier. The total collected amount along with break up used to be recorded in the cash register. Thereafter, he used to prepare the treasury challan on the basis of challan register which was prepared earlier by the Head Cashier. The money receipt used to be opened with the signature of him and Head Cashier. Similarly on the closing of the money receipt, he himself and Head Cashier used to put their signatures thereon. On the over leaf of the receipt after total calculation, Head Cashier used to put his signature. On the treasury challan also both of them used to put their signatures. The cash amount so collected on each day was kept in the iron chest. The iron chest was having two keys since it was double lock system and one of the keys of the front door was kept with him and key of another lock of the front door was kept with the head cashier. He also stated that P.W. 10 Sri Anit Debbarma was the predecessor-in-office of Kajal Dey. This maintenance of key system was being adhered long before even during the incumbency of Anit Debbarma. Twice or thrice in a week collected amount used to be deposited in the TLA Branch of the State Bank of India through treasury challans. One class-IV employee generally used to be sent to the treasury by the Head Cashier in connection with passing of the treasury challans. Thereafter, the treasury challans having been passed, the Head Cashier used to deposit the amount to the Bank and the concerned bank staff used to receive the amount after giving receipt seal on the remittance book and challans. The class-IV employee, namely, Sri Nani Gopal Rudra Paul (P.W. 2) was particularly entrusted by the Head Cashier for passing treasury challan who used to put his signature on the column No. 1 of the treasury challan and he used to receive allowance for this work. 22A. As per rule, the accounts were supposed to be audited after closing of the financial year by the A.G. staff. During the first part of April, 1993, during his incumbency, the revenue accounts was started to be audited by the A.G. staff. On 17.4.93, he received a preliminary observation slip (POS) from the audit party which was marked as Exbt. 1. He also stated that in POS, the audit party detected that Rs. During the first part of April, 1993, during his incumbency, the revenue accounts was started to be audited by the A.G. staff. On 17.4.93, he received a preliminary observation slip (POS) from the audit party which was marked as Exbt. 1. He also stated that in POS, the audit party detected that Rs. 6,00,229.45 was not deposited against 11 nos. of challans of different dates of different amounts and on being detected the same, he has informed the matter to the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer asked him to personally visit the concerned Bank for verification of the amount. Accordingly, he visited the concerned Bank for verification of the amount and the audit party also verified the Bank as well as the Treasury No. 2 in reference to POS No. 1 and submitted further POS No. 1. It was detected that that except the challan Sl. No. 8 & 9 of POS No. 1, the other challans were not traceable in the Electrical Division No. 1 and Sl. No. 8 bearing Challan No. 67 dated 21.12.92 amounting to Rs. 73,196.65 was shown in the Cash Book on 23.12.93 and Sl. No. 9 bearing Challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 amounting to Rs. 73,219.10 was shown in the Cash Book on 22.1.93. He also stated that on verification at the State Bank of India at TLA House Branch, Agartala, he found that there was no deposit against 11 nos. of challans including challan No. 8 & 9 of POS No. 1 and he was supplied with a carbon copy of further POS No. 1 on 19.4.93. 22B. On the same day, he issued an explanation to the accused appellant, the then UDC cum cashier, but he declined to accept the explanation. Thereafter, on 21.4.93, he again issued explanation, on that date; he was not available in the office after 1 p.m. Subsequently, on the same day in the afternoon, he sent the explanation to his home address by messenger. He proved the explanation dated 19.4.93 and 21.4.93 which was marked as Exbt. 2 series. He further deposed that on 3.5.93, he received POS No. 2 from the Audit Party wherein it was detected that Rs. 4,44,026.50 was not deposited in the State Bank of India TLA House Branch against 9 nos. Challans of different dates of different amounts. He has proved the said POS No. 2 which was marked as Exbt. 2 series. He further deposed that on 3.5.93, he received POS No. 2 from the Audit Party wherein it was detected that Rs. 4,44,026.50 was not deposited in the State Bank of India TLA House Branch against 9 nos. Challans of different dates of different amounts. He has proved the said POS No. 2 which was marked as Exbt. 2 series. 22C. He further stated that on 21.4.93, when Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer visited his office with prior intimation but the accused appellant despite his previous instructions remained absent from his office and on that date, he went to the Bank to deposit the collected amount along with one Junior Engineer, namely, Pankaj Roy. On 21.4.93, he made necessary entry and he proved the entry made by the accused appellant Kajal Dey in the remittance register alone with his signature which was marked as Exbt. 4 and 4/1. 22D. On 22.4.93, he lodged FIR to the East Agartala P.S. against the accused appellant Kajal Dey as per instructions of the Superintending Engineer and subsequently, in reference to POS 2, he informed the O.C. East Agartala P.S. and on 3.5.93, he also submitted a copy of POS-2 to the O.C. East Agartala P.S. He has proved the cash register, remittance register and the challan register which were exhibited. He has further stated that on 21.12.92, there was entry in the receipt column of the cash book as against the amount of Rs. 73,196.65 and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/17 and on 21.12.92, there was entry against challan No. 61 to 67 and there was entry of challan No. 67 dated 21.12.92 for the amount of Rs. 73,196.65 and the same was written by the accused appellant Kajal Dey, relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/10. He has also stated that on 23.12.92, there was entry in the deposit column of the cash book for the aforesaid amount written by Kajal Dey, relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/18. On 23.12.92, although there was entry as against other deposits but there was no entry in the remittance register against challan No. 67 which was written by the accused appellant and the portion was marked as Exbt. 14/8. He has also deposed that on 19.1.93, there was entry in the receipt column of the cash book for the amount of Rs. 14/8. He has also deposed that on 19.1.93, there was entry in the receipt column of the cash book for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 as cash along with other entries and relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/19. 22E. He further stated that on 19.1.93, there was three entries in the challan register and there was entry of the said amount as against the Challan No. 36, the relevant portion was proved and marked as Exbt. 9/11 and on 22.1.93 there was entry of the said amount in the deposit column of the cash book as prepared by accused appellant along with other entries and the relevant portion is marked as Exbt. 11/20 but in the remittance register there was no such entry as against the said amount against Challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/9. He stated that on 23.2.93 there are entries as against the amount of Rs. 47,639.50 along with other entries in the receipt column of the cash book which was written by accused K. Dey and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/21. He stated that in the Challan register, there are 3 entries on 23.2.93 and there was entry about the said amount against the Challan No. 40, prepared by the accused appellant and endorsed by him which he proved as Exbt. 9/12 and also stated that in the deposit column of the cash book, there was entry about the said amount on 27.2.93 vide Challan No. 40 dated 23.2.93 along with other entries written by accused and endorsed by him, relevant portion of which was proved and marked as Exbt. 11/22. He stated that on 27.2.93 there are 2 entries in the remittance register but there was no entry as against the Challan No. 40 dated 23.2.93 for the said amount along with other entries written by the accused which was marked as Exbt. 14/10 and also stated that on 27.2.93 there was entry as against the amount of Rs. 34,637.20 as cash along with other entries written by the accused and endorsed by him, that portion was marked as Exbt. 11/23 and further stated that there are three entries in the Challan register on 27.2.93 vide Challan No. 48 to 50 written by the accused and endorsed by him, the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/13. 34,637.20 as cash along with other entries written by the accused and endorsed by him, that portion was marked as Exbt. 11/23 and further stated that there are three entries in the Challan register on 27.2.93 vide Challan No. 48 to 50 written by the accused and endorsed by him, the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/13. In the deposit column of the cash book, there was entry of the said amount against the Challan No. 50 dated 27.2.93 along with other entries and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/24 and also stated that in the remittance register there are three entries on 2.3.93 but there was no entry as against the said amount against Challan No 50 dated 27.2.93 and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/11. He deposed that on 15.4.92, three Challans were prepared for different amount vide Challan No. 31, 32 & 33 and Rs. 67,067.35 was collected vide Challan No. 33 dated 15.4.93 and Challan register was prepared relating to 3 nos. of Challan by the accused and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/14, the total amount vide Challan No. 33 dated 15.4.92 was duly entered in the cash book along with other entries by the accused and in the deposit column on 22.4.92 that was duly entered by the accused and the entry regarding Challan No. 33 dated 15.4.92 was not mentioned in the remittance register though the other entries were duly made and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/12. He deposed that on 16.4.92, four number of challans were prepared vide Challan No. 34 to 37 and Rs. 74,839.25 vide Challan No. 37 dated 16.4.92 was duly collected in cash and challan was prepared by the accused and that portion was marked as Exbt. 14/13 and also stated that entry was entered in the receipt column of the cash book dated 16.4.92 by the accused along with other entries and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/25. So this amount vide Challan No. 37 dated 16.4.92 was shown in the deposit column of the cash book along with other entries by the accused and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/26, but there was no entry of Challan No. 37 dated 16.4.92 of the said amount in the remittance register though other entries were made and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/26, but there was no entry of Challan No. 37 dated 16.4.92 of the said amount in the remittance register though other entries were made and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/14. He further deposed that on 2.5.92 Rs. 27,002.60 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries in the cash book entered by the accused K. Dey and endorsed by him and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/27. He stated that Challan No. 1 dated 2.5.92 was duly prepared for this amount and entries were made in the Challan register by the accused and endorsed by him and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/15 and also stated that on 18.5.92 this was shown on the deposit column of the cash book along with other entries made by the accused and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/28, but there was no mention of that amount in the remittance register made by the accused and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/15. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/29 and on 22.5.92 along with other Challan. Challan No. 27 dated 22.5.92 was duly prepared by the accused in the Challan register and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/16 and on 28.5.92, the said amount was shown in the deposit column of the cash book along with other entries by the accused and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/31, but in the remittance register there was no mention of that amount though other entries were made and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/16. He further stated that on 26.5.92, Rs. 51,995.70 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/31. He deposed that Challan No. 30 dated 26.5.92 was prepared by the accused and entries were made in the Challan register by the accused and he proved the relevant portion of the entry as Exbt. 9/17. He deposed that on 29.5.92 that amount was shown deposited in the receipt column of the cash book along with other entries by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 9/17. He deposed that on 29.5.92 that amount was shown deposited in the receipt column of the cash book along with other entries by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/32. He further deposed that regarding that amount there was no mention in the remittance register though other entries were made and he also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/17. He also stated that on 16.6.92, Rs. 52,327.50 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries in the cash book written by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/33 and accordingly Challan No. 34 dated 16.6.92 was prepared by the accused and entries were made in the Challan register along with other entries. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/18 and on 22.6.92, the said amount was shown in the deposit column of the cash book by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/34, but there was no mention about the said amount in the remittance register. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/18. Again he deposed that Rs. 33,870.10 was shown in the receipt column on 23.6.92 along with other entries by the accused in the cash book. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/18. Again he deposed that Rs. 33,870.10 was shown in the receipt column on 23.6.92 along with other entries by the accused in the cash book. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/35 and Challan No. 44 dated 23.6.92 was duly prepared by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/19. He stated that on 26.6.92 the said amount was shown deposited in the cash book along with other entries by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/36, but there was no mention of the said amount in the remittance register on 26.6.92. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/19. Again he deposed that on 26.6.94, Rs. 42,694.20 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries in the cash book. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries in the cash book. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/37. He deposed that Challan No. 55 dated 29.6.92 was duly prepared for the said amount and the entries were also made by the accused in the Challan register. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/20 and on 3.7.92 the said amount was shown in the deposit column of the cash book by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/20 and on 3.7.92 the said amount was shown in the deposit column of the cash book by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/38, but on 3.7.92 there was no mention about the said amount in the remittance register though other entries were made. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/20. He stated that on 16.7.92, Rs. 56,573.70 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries in the cash book by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/39 and on 14.7.92 Challan No. 42 was prepared and the same was duly entered in the remittance register by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 19/21 and on 16.7.92 that was shown in the deposit column of the cash book by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/40, but in the remittance register though other entries were made by the accused, that amount was not entered by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/21. He further deposed that subsequently POS No. 15 (Exbt. 7) another amount of Rs. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/21. He further deposed that subsequently POS No. 15 (Exbt. 7) another amount of Rs. 69,100/- was detected which was received on 18.1.93 and the said amount was shown in the receipt column of the cash book along with other entries by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/41. He also deposed that the challan No. 33 dated 18.1.93 was duly prepared against the said amount and entries were also made in the Challan register by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92 Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 9/22 and on 20.1.93 that amount was shown deposited in the cash book along with other entries by the accused. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 11/42, but there was no mention about the said amount in the remittance register. He also stated that on 22.5.92, Rs. 37,656.10 was shown in the receipt column along with other entries by the accused in the cash book and the relevant portion was marked as Exbt. 14/22. He stated that on receipt of POS, he made contact with the Manager, TLA Branch, Agartala on 17.5.93 and thereafter, Manager, TLA Branch, Agartala informed him that the amount of Rs. 69,100/- vide Challan No. 33 dated 18.1.93 was not deposited in the bank. The original copy of the correspondence with the Manager, TLA Branch, Agartala could not be traced out and photo copy of the said correspondence submitted before this Court and photo copies of the same was marked as Exbt. 21 and 22 respectively (S.O.). He stated that besides he personally verified the relevant papers and documents and also talked with the Manager, he was satisfied that the said amount was not deposited against the concerning challan. 21 and 22 respectively (S.O.). He stated that besides he personally verified the relevant papers and documents and also talked with the Manager, he was satisfied that the said amount was not deposited against the concerning challan. He further stated that during his incumbency, the accused K. Dey once filed a petition praying for releasing the NSC and that was forwarded to the Executive Engineer and he proved that the petition of the accused as Exbt. 23 and signature of the accused K. Dey as Exbt. 23/1 and his forwarding endorsement was marked as Exbt. 23/2. He stated that during his incumbency as cashier accused K. Dey used to receive cash allowance as Exbt. 24 and he also proved the signature of accused K. Dey in the said order as Exbt. 24/1. He deposed that on various dates, the police seized so many documents from his office and he proved all those documents. 22F. He has also stated that on 11.5.93, challan No. 67 dated 21.12.92 for the amount of Rs. 73,196.65 and another challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 were seized by the I.O. from the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No. 1, Agartala. Both the challans were prepared by the accused Kajal Dey and countersigned by himself which were marked as Exbt. 25 series. He has also proved his signature as well as the signature of the accused Kajal Dey. On 15.5.93, four numbers of money receipt book were seized by the I.O. from his custody and he has also proved those seized documents. 23. In his cross, he stated that the office of the SDO of the Consumers Service Division No. 1 and the office of the Executive Engineer of the Consumer Service Sub-division No. 1 have different establishment and there are separate cashiers for the separate establishments. The accused appellant was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer of Consumes Sub-division No. 1 from his office by order of the Engineer-in-Chief dated 23.7.92. He has released him from his office on 27.7.92 and the accused appellant joined in his new assignment on transfer on the same date and on that date he again joined his previous assignment in the office of P.W. 1 with verbal order of the then Executive Engineer. He has released him from his office on 27.7.92 and the accused appellant joined in his new assignment on transfer on the same date and on that date he again joined his previous assignment in the office of P.W. 1 with verbal order of the then Executive Engineer. There is no documentary evidence to prove that the accused joined his previous assignment in his office on the same date after joining his new assignment on promotion. He has also stated in his cross that he did not personally verify as to whether all the relevant documents and cash of the Cash Section were handed over to the accused by Anit Debbarma (P.W. 10). But he saw that the work of the cash section was running properly. He has also stated that day to day revenue collections are kept inside the chest and chest was always opened in presence of both of them. When Anit Debbarma was the cashier, one of the keys of the chest was with him and the other key was retained by Anit Debbarma as per usual practice. There is no mention in the charge report, Exbt. D-1, that the key of the chest was handed over to the accused appellant by his predecessor, Anit Debbama at the time of handing over the charge and it is not possible on his part to produce any document to prove that the key lying with the predecessor cashier of the chest was handed over to the accused at the time of handing over the charge to the accused appellant. In explanation, the witness further stated that the handwriting on the receipt is of the accused and the accused appellant collected the signature of the witness from office paper and put the content over the signature. He has given no explanation earlier in his deposition regarding this document. The signature of the witness on 20 nos. photocopies of receipts of various dates and various amounts on identification are marked as Exbt. D3 series. He has also explained that after collecting his signature from various files, the accused appellant put the contents according to his choice after making space on the paper by photo copying the signatures. 23A. He has also stated that challan No. 36 and 67, Exbt. 25 series, contained his signature and signature of the accused as well as Barkandaj, (P.W. 2). 23A. He has also stated that challan No. 36 and 67, Exbt. 25 series, contained his signature and signature of the accused as well as Barkandaj, (P.W. 2). There are no challan other than these two challans of the disputed amount. 23B. He has specifically stated that it appears from the challans that the money was tendered by the Barkandaj and it was received by the State Bank of India, TLA Branch. Other challans were also tendered by the Barkandaj and the money tendered was similarly accepted by the SBI, TLA Branch and it is not possible on his part to produce any documentary evidence that the accused appellant cashier ever deposited any amount with the Bank himself. In his cross, he has also stated that he did not state to the I.O. that it was the duty of Barkandaj N. Pal to collect challans from the Bank when the challan was not delivered from the Bank immediately. Attention of this witness was drawn to his previous statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr. P.C. to the following statement: If any challan is not received instantly from the cashier of the Bank, then it is the responsibility of Sri Nani Gopal Rudra Paul to collect the said challan after waiting for the same. 23C. The aforesaid statement was exhibited as Exbt. D-4, which was subject to proof by the I.O. He has also stated in his cross that it was his duty to maintain daily collection register and he did not maintain the register. In explanation, he said that such a register was never maintained in his office before him also. 24. P.W. 2 was the Daftri/Barkandaj who was working in the cash section in the office of the SDO (Electrical) CSS Sub-Division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala. He stated that he used to sign the challans and submit the same to the Bank for passing towards deposit of the revenue in the Bank. The cashier used to come to the Bank with money and he had to stand in queue till his appearance with the passed challans. Accused Kajal Dey and his predecessor Anit Debbarma and other previous cashiers performed their works similarly. He also stated that he often used to sign blank challans for future use as per instructions of the head cashiers and after being signed; he left those challans with the head casher. Accused Kajal Dey and his predecessor Anit Debbarma and other previous cashiers performed their works similarly. He also stated that he often used to sign blank challans for future use as per instructions of the head cashiers and after being signed; he left those challans with the head casher. He further stated that he could not say whether the accused Kajal Dey being the head cashier actually deposited the money with the bank against the challans after the challans were passed by him from time to time. It was his duty to collect the challans after the money was deposited with the bank against those challans. He used to submit the challans to the head cashier Kajal Dey. After collection of revenue, Smt. Bina Chakraborty, P.W. 3 used to accumulate the entire collection of the day and thereafter she handed over the entire amount to the head cashier. The head cashier then used to keep the entire revenue collection in the iron chest and thereafter the revenue was deposited to the bank through challans on convenient days. 24A. He also stated that there were two keys of the iron chest and he could not say whether the head cashier always retained both the keys with him. The cashier used to operate the chest in his absence. The SDO never operated the iron chest. The head cashier always used to operate the iron chest alone. He also stated that it is not a fact that always he used to deposit the revenue collection with the bank through challans and head cashier Kajal Dey never deposited the revenue collection with the bank. 25. P.W. 3 Smt. Bina Chakraborty, an L.D. clerk used to sit in the cash section in the office of the SDO (electrical), CSS Sub-division No. 1, Banamalipur, Agartala. Her duty was to collect revenue relating to the consumers' bills through counters. During the year 1992-93, the head casher of their office was Kajal Dey. Sri Nani Gopal Rudrapaul was working as Daftari/Barkandaj in the cash section to assist the head cashier and Ranjita Dey, Haripada Adhikari, Swapan Acharjee and others were her colleagues. They used to collect the revenue through printed receipt books. After the collection of the day was over, the entire amount of collection was deposited with her. Sri Nani Gopal Rudrapaul was working as Daftari/Barkandaj in the cash section to assist the head cashier and Ranjita Dey, Haripada Adhikari, Swapan Acharjee and others were her colleagues. They used to collect the revenue through printed receipt books. After the collection of the day was over, the entire amount of collection was deposited with her. She then used to examine the records and after being satisfied that the records were properly maintained for collection, she handed over the amount to the head cashier, Kajal Dey. The revenue was then kept in the iron chest in the office by head cashier Kajal Dey and on convenient day, the amount was deposited with the bank through challans by the head cashier. 26. P.W. 8 Smt. Devi Debbarma was the cashier cum clerk in the SBI, TLA House Branch from the year 1983 to 1990 and thereafter she became the Deputy Head Cashier in the same branch. She stated that they used to collect the Govt. revenue in two counters in the said bank branch. On receiving a challan with money and the remittance book, they go through the challans and count money as per the denomination mentioned in the back side of the challan. Then they put seal and mention the amount of money in both figures and words and the person received the money put his signature. If the amount received is above Rs. 3000/-, the challan and scroll are sent to the cash officer for his signature. In the remittance register also, they mention the amount of money and put their signature. Seeing the challan No. 36 dated 19.1.93 for the amount of Rs. 73,219.10 and challan No. 67 dated 21.12.92 for Rs. 73,196.65, she stated that the amount mentioned in figure and words with the seal of the bank is not her handwriting and the seal in it is also not the seal of the bank. 27. P.W. 10 Sri Anit Debbarma was the U.D. Clerk with the charge of Head Cashier in the office of the SDO, (Electrical) Consumers Services Sub-Division No. 1, Agartala. He stated that on his transfer in the middle of 1990, he handed over the charge of the head cashier to Kajal Dey, the accused appellant. 27. P.W. 10 Sri Anit Debbarma was the U.D. Clerk with the charge of Head Cashier in the office of the SDO, (Electrical) Consumers Services Sub-Division No. 1, Agartala. He stated that on his transfer in the middle of 1990, he handed over the charge of the head cashier to Kajal Dey, the accused appellant. He also stated that after the day's collection, the cashiers of the counters used to deposit the money with him in cash, draft and cheque with the receipt books and he on receipt of them, used to make entry about the amount received against each money receipt book on the reverse page and he put his signature with date and the SDO also used to put his signature. For the cash amount he prepared one challans and he used to prepare one challan for each draft and cheque. The SDO and he used to sign in the challans. One Nani Gopal Rudra Paul, Daftri attached to the cashier used to put his signature in the portion marked as tenderer in the challan. He used to do this in bunch of challans before filling up of the challans. He used to sign as N. Paul for passing the challan by the bank officials. Thereafter he used to stand in the queue in the bank. He used to reach the bank after half an hour or so almost every working day. When the turn used to come, he used to deposit the money with the remittance register with passed challan. A register of challan was also being maintained by him. Regarding the money received in cash/cheque/draft, he used to maintain the cash book each day and the SDO and he used to sign in the cash book. Thereafter, the cash used to be kept in the iron chest in the office. There were two keys of the front door of the chest. One of the keys used to be with him and another with the SDO. The chest door could not be opened without using both the keys together. On receipt of money at the cash counter of the bank, the cashier used to put his signature in the remittance register mentioning about the money received. He also used to make endorsement in this regard with his signature in all copies of challans. The chest door could not be opened without using both the keys together. On receipt of money at the cash counter of the bank, the cashier used to put his signature in the remittance register mentioning about the money received. He also used to make endorsement in this regard with his signature in all copies of challans. Later on Nani Gopal used to collect the remittance register and challan from the bank. On receipt of the same, entry in the cash book used to be made each day. Within the first week of each month, he used to send monthly statement about the revenue collected from the previous month along with challans returned from the bank about the deposit made with the forwarding letter prepared by him as head cashier and signed by the SDO. It was sent to the Division No. 1, Agartala. He further stated that as cashier, he used to hold the keys of the almirah in the room of the cashier and one of the keys of the chest. He handed over the charge of the cashier to Kajal Dey in the manner he received charge from Kataki Roy who was the head casher. In writing he handed over cash books (previous and current), remittance register, challan register, movement register, money receipt book (current and the pending stock). He also handed over the keys of almirah, one of the keys of the chest and the key of the room to Kajal Dey. In this regards, there was no written document as no such document was created when he took over the charge from Kataki Roy. 28. Upon scrutiny of the evidence as laid down by the prosecution, we have not found anything that the accused appellant prepared any false documents with intent to cause any damage or injury to public or commit any fraud. Even if the prosecution story is believed in toto, then also it appears that even P.W. 1 was not sure as to whether keys of the chest was handed over to the accused appellant by his predecessor (P.W. 10) at the time of handing over the charge. Even if the Challan No. 36 and 67, Ext. Even if the prosecution story is believed in toto, then also it appears that even P.W. 1 was not sure as to whether keys of the chest was handed over to the accused appellant by his predecessor (P.W. 10) at the time of handing over the charge. Even if the Challan No. 36 and 67, Ext. 25 series, were written by the accused appellant that would not come within the meaning of forgery as defined in Section 464 as well as Section 470 IPC as there is no evidence directly that the accused appellant prepared false document. To bring a document within the definition of a forged document, it has first to be shown to be a false document covered under Section 464 IPC and even mere proving of making a false document without establishing the intention of the maker is not sufficient to constitute an offence and unless forgery of a document is proved, it cannot be said that the said forgery document is used as genuine one, meaning thereby to constitute an offence under Section 471 IPC, first an offence under Section 468 IPC has to be established. 29. The learned trial Court though did not pass any order of separate sentence under Section 468 IPC, but convicted the accused appellant under both the Section 468 as well as 471 IPC without any legal evidence. 30. In Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC (Supp.) 347, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the term of forgery and observed as under: 10. Section 457 (insofar as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. 11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term 'forgery' used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. 11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term 'forgery' used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, on with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 12. Section 464 defining 'making a false document' is extracted below: '464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First.--who dishonestly or fraudulently-- (a) Makes, sins, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made signed sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly,--Who, without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1.--A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 1.--A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2.--The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. (Note.--The words 'digital signature' wherever they occur were substituted by the words 'electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009)' (Emphasis supplied). 13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 14. An analysis of Section 464 of penal Code Shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a 'false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of this senses. 15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false document'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner to execute the deeds on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. 31. In this case, as has been mentioned above, the case of the complainant is that the challans were written by the accused appellant, but there is no evidence that the said challans were prepared by him for his own interest and the property, i.e. the amount mentioned in the challans were transferred in favour of the accused appellant or the same was used for his personal purposes. Therefore, according to us, no case is made out under Section 468 IPC and 471 IPC against the accused appellant. 32. Now let us consider the evidence relating to the offence under Section 409 IPC. Before recording the conviction under Section 409 IPC, the prosecution has to prove two essential facts viz. (1) the factum of entrustment and (2) the factum of misappropriation of the entrusted articles as those are conditions precedent. 33. In Roshan Lal Raina Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 631 , the Apex Court while considering the appeal of the aforesaid appellant who was convicted under Section 409 Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of four months, observed that "without proof of entrustment there can be no question of the appellant being found guilty of the offence under Section 409, R.P.C. The only other incriminating circumstance alleged against the appellant was the recovery of four missing pages of the rent register from his house. This circumstance has not been relied upon by the High Court also, as the recovery was found to be suspicious. The High Court noticed that the room of the accused had been searched twice previously and nothing was recovered. It was only on the third occasion that the four missing pages were recovered. We are satisfied that the High Court was in error in convicting the accused under S. 409 R.P.C. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 409, R.P.C." 34. To prove the evidence under Section 409 of the IPC the prosecution has first to prove that the property alleged to have been defalcated was entrusted with the accused appellant who dishonestly misappropriated or converted the said property for his own use. In absence of such entrustment which is sine qua non for an offence regarding the defalcation, the court is to disbelieve the story of defalcation. 35. As the handwriting expert was not admittedly examined, the report of the handwriting expert (Exbt. 47 series), cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091 : 1977 Cri. LJ 711, wherein the Apex Court taking note of its earlier decision that the expert evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before accepting on such an evidence, it would be desirable for the court to see as to whether such evidence of expert is otherwise corroborated either by direct evidence or by substantial evidence. In Magan Bihari Lal (supra), the Apex Court held as under: In Magan Bihari Lal AIR 1977 Sc 1091 : 1977 Cri. LJ 711) (supra), the Apex Court while discussing regarding evidence of expert opinion took note of the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 Sc 381 :(1957 Cri. LJ 559) as well as the decision in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. LJ 711) (supra), the Apex Court while discussing regarding evidence of expert opinion took note of the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 Sc 381 :(1957 Cri. LJ 559) as well as the decision in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728 wherein it has been stated that the expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and the said view of the Apex Court was also reiterated in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 wherein it has been pointed out by the Apex Court that the expert 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 the clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court in the case of Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 : (1967 Cri. LJ 1197) also considered the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting 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. The Apex Court also noted the observation of the Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of Alfred Foster's Will wherein the Supreme Court of Michigan noted that 'Everyone 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." The Apex Court taking note of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court of Michigan stated that "we need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence is by its very nature, weak and inform and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction". The case of Magan Bihari Lal AIR 1977 Sc 1091 : 1977 Cri. The case of Magan Bihari Lal AIR 1977 Sc 1091 : 1977 Cri. LJ 711) (supra) has also been followed in the case of S. Gopal Reddy : AIR 1996 SC 2184 : 1996 Cri. LJ 3237) (supra) as evident from paras 28 and 29 of the report which are reproduced hereunder: 28. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 is not definite and cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the Courts do not generally consider it as offering conclusive proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 , while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert this court opined: (SCC pp. 213-14, Para-7): ( AIR 1977 SC 1091 : 1977 Cri. LJ 711). .....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., AIR 1957 SC 381 , that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis of 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 Misra v. Mohd. Isa, IR 1963 SC 1728 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, AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's 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., AIR 1967 SC 1326 : (1967 Cri. LJ 1197) 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. 29. We are unable to agree in the established facts and circumstances of this case, with the view expressed by the courts below that P.W. 1 is a competent witness to speak about the handwriting of the appellant and that the opinion of P.W. 3 has received corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 admittedly did not receive any of those letters. He had no occasion to be familiar with the handwriting of the appellant. He is not a handwriting expert. The bald assertion of P.W. 1 that he was ' familiar' with the handwriting of the appellant and fully 'acquainted' with the contents of the letter, admittedly not addressed to him, without disclosing how he was familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, is difficult to accept. Section 67 of the Evidence Act, 1972 enjoins that before a document can be looked into, it has to be proved. Section 67, of course, does not prescribe any particular mode of proof. Section 47 of the Evidence Act which occurs in the chapter relating to 'relevancy of facts' provides that the opinion of a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of a particularly person is a relevant fact. Similarly, opinion of a handwriting expert is also a relevant fact for identifying any handwriting. The ordinary method of proving a document is by calling as a witness the persons who had executed the document or saw it being executed or signed or is otherwise qualified and competent to express his opinion as to the handwriting. There are some other modes of proof of documents also as by comparison of the handwriting as envisaged under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or through the evidence of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Act, besides by the admission of the person against whom the document is intended to be used. There are some other modes of proof of documents also as by comparison of the handwriting as envisaged under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or through the evidence of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Act, besides by the admission of the person against whom the document is intended to be used. The receiver of the document, on establishing his acquaintance with the handwriting of the person and competence to identify the writing with which he is familiar, may also prove a document. These modes are legitimate methods of proving documents but before they can be accepted they must bear sufficient strength to carry conviction. Keeping in view the inconclusive and indefinite nature of the evidence of the handwriting expert P.W. 3 and the lack of competence on the part of PW 1 to be familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, the approach adopted by the Courts below to arrive at the conclusion that the disputed letters were written by the appellant to Ms. Vani on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 was not proper. The doubtful evidence of PW 1 could neither offer any corroboration to the inconclusive and indefinite opinion of the handwriting expert PW 3 nor could it receive my corroboration from the opinion of PW 3. We are not satisfied, in the established facts and circumstances of this case that the prosecution has established either the genuineness or the authorship of the disputed letters allegedly written by the appellant from the evidence of PW 1 or PW 3. The Courts below appear to have taken a rather superficial view of the matter while relying upon the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 to hold the appellant guilty. We find it unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 or PW 3 in the absence of substantial independent corroboration, internally or externally, of their evidence, which in the case is totally wanting. 36. In that case, the Apex Court has also dealt with Section 67 and 47 of the Evidence Act. 36. In that case, the Apex Court has also dealt with Section 67 and 47 of the Evidence Act. In Para 29 of the said report, the Apex Court noted that Section 67, of course, does not prescribe any particular mode of proof while Section 47 of the Evidence Act which occurs in the chapter relating to 'relevancy of facts' provides that the opinion of a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of a particular person is a relevant fact. Similarly, opinion of a handwriting expert is also a relevant fact for identifying any handwriting. The ordinary method of proving a document is by calling as a witness the person who had executed the document or saw it being executed or signed or is otherwise qualified and competent to express his opinion as to the handwriting. And there are some other modes of proof of documents also as by comparison of the handwriting as envisaged under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or through the evidence of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Act, besides by the admission of the person against whom the document is intended to be used. 37. In view of the above discussion of the Apex Court, it can be said that the submission of Mr. Kabir relating to Exbt. 47 series (opinion of the handwriting expert) has some force. We are also considered opinion that such opinion of handwriting expert cannot be treated as legal evidence. 38. Admittedly, except the challan No. 36 and 67, no other challan is the subject of dispute in the instant case. The challans being No. 36 and 67 were seized from the office of the Executive Engineer, not from the custody of the accused appellant and the amount mentioned therein were not received by the accused appellant for depositing the same with the State Bank of India, TLA House Branch, but it is the P.W. 2, Nani Gopal Rudrapaul, Barkandaj, who admittedly tendered the amount as per the challans and if the said amount is not deposited, then for such non-deposit, the accused appellant cannot be held responsible, as admittedly the challans were subsequently collected by the P.W. 2 and placed the same before the accused appellant who believing the same as genuine ones made entries in the cash book. Though there is no direct evidence relating to entrustment of the property alleged to have been misappropriated, but for the argument sake, if it is assumed that entrustment was proved, then also there is absolutely no legal evidence to show either direct or circumstantial that the accused appellant had misappropriated any of the properties entrusted with him as stated supra. 39. As it is stated above as regards the challan No. 36 and 67 relating to disputed amount and other challans as exhibited that it is the P.W. 2 who always tendered the money with the Bank and that the challans prepared by the accused appellant and signed by P.W. 1, the accused appellant by way of adducing evidence partly proved that the money which was collected through cash counters and received by him were normally handed over to P.W. 1. P.W. 2 was the person who tendered the money, which would be evident from the cross of P.W. 1. Therefore, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant had forged the challans and falsified the accounts for misappropriation of money as alleged. 40. In order to bring home an offence under Section 477-A, the prosecution has to establish that at the material time the accused appellant was a clerk, officer or servant or employed and acting in that capacity, he destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper, writing, valuable security or accounts which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer or has been received by him and for or on behalf of his employer etc. and that the accused appellant acted willfully with intent to defraud. 41. In the instant case, though the prosecution proved that the accused appellant was the in-charge head cashier at the relevant time, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused appellant who altered or falsified the challans, the remittance register, cash book etc. with a willful intention to defraud. Mere writing a challan and preparation of cash book on the basis of said challan would not come within the purview of falsification of accounts. Therefore, offence under Section 477-A is also not made out beyond reasonable doubt. 42. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2005 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Therefore, offence under Section 477-A is also not made out beyond reasonable doubt. 42. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2005 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, the accused appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As it appears from the order dated 4.3.2003 passed in Crl. M. Appl. No. 18 of 2006 that the accused appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged. Send down the lower courts records.