JUDGMENT :- These Criminal Revision Applications have been filed by original accused in the matter of Regular Criminal Case No.196 of 2003, which was disposed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath. Petitioner Limbaji Sopan Karle was Accused No.1, Petitioner Sanjivan @ Sanjay Kisan Puri was Accused No.2 and Petitioner Ankush Dhondappa Pujari was Accused No.3 in the Criminal Case. Along with these Petitioners, one Sarjerao Bhaurao Hodbe was also tried as Accused No.4. Said Sarjerao came to be acquitted. I will refer to these Petitioners as Accused Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 along with acquitted Accused No.4 Sarjerao were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 409, 418, 467, 468, 474 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."). Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were convicted and sentenced to various imprisonments and fines, under Section 409, 468 and 474 of I.P.C. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, vide Judgment dated 18th May, 2007. Accused No.1 Limbaji filed Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2007, Accused No.2 Sanjivan filed Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2007 and Accused No.3 Ankush filed Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2007 to Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist-Beed. The Appeals were dismissed vide Judgment dated 26th September, 2013. Thus the present Revision Applications have been filed by these Accused. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. The record has been perused. 4. In brief the case of prosecution is that:- (A) Complainant Prabhakar Pandharinath Joshi, a priest had Savings Bank Account No.3487 in Marathwada Gramin Bank. Accused No.1 Limbaji was Branch Manager, Accused No.2 Sanjivan was Peon and Accused No.3 Ankush was Cashier at the Bank. Acquitted Accused No.4 Sarjerao Hodbe was also employee of the Bank. (B) On 13th November, 2002 complainant Prabhakar Joshi went to the Bank for withdrawing amount. Accused No.3 Ankush filled up the withdrawal slip for the complainant. Complainant wanted to withdraw Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). It is alleged that he withdrew Rs.2500/- and entry was made accordingly in the passbook. (B) On 13th November, 2002 complainant Prabhakar Joshi went to the Bank for withdrawing amount. Accused No.3 Ankush filled up the withdrawal slip for the complainant. Complainant wanted to withdraw Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). It is alleged that he withdrew Rs.2500/- and entry was made accordingly in the passbook. Subsequently, on 8th February, 2003, complainant again went to the Bank for withdrawal of amount and filled up withdrawal slip so as to withdraw Rs.20,000/- but at that time he was told by Accused No.1 Limbaji and Accused No.2 Sanjivan that no such amount was there in his account and he was told that he had already withdrawn Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) on 13th November, 2002. According to the prosecution, Accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened complainant and tried to snatch his passbook and tried to make corrections. The complainant shouted and he was given back the passbook. Prosecution alleged that the accused persons forged Bank records so as to misappropriate amount of the complainant. Complainant made complaints to superior officers of the accused persons and when no action was taken, he filed private complaint on 6th March, 2003 and in view of order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), First Information Report came to be registered on 9th April, 2003 at Crime No.64 of 2003 at Parli Rural Police Station. (C) P.S.I. Satish Wagh of the Police Station prepared Spot Panchnama and collected the passbook from the complainant. The withdrawal slip was also seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Concerned documents from the records of the Bank were also collected and seized under Panchnama. The Investigating Officer collected specimen signatures and writings of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the documents were sent for opinion of the handwriting expert. Opinion of the handwriting expert was received. The chargesheet came to be filed against Accused Nos.1 to 4. Charge was framed and prosecution brought on record evidence of complainant Prabhakar Joshi (PW-1), handwriting expert Parshuram Rajaram Dhotare (PW-2) and Investigating Officer Satish Wagh (PW-3). On the basis of evidence brought on record, trial Court imposed conviction and First Appellate Court has maintained the conviction. Thus, there are concurrent findings. 5. At the time of arguments, the learned Advocates on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that in the matter the most important document is the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51. On the basis of evidence brought on record, trial Court imposed conviction and First Appellate Court has maintained the conviction. Thus, there are concurrent findings. 5. At the time of arguments, the learned Advocates on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that in the matter the most important document is the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51. In the withdrawal slip, which is written in Marathi, it was written in words ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ i.e. Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only. In figures also it was mentioned ^^#&25000@&^^ . According to the learned counsel the handwriting expert gave opinion that in the three zeros one zero in between had been squeezed inside and thus according to the learned counsel, the Courts below concluded that there was forgery and accepted the evidence of the complainant that on 13th November, 2002 he has received only Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). It has been argued that there are no reasonings given as to how Rupees Twenty Five Thousand mentioned in words, could have been ignored. It has been argued that it was a genuine mistake while writing in the withdrawal slip and Accused No.4 who has been acquitted, had, by mistake written Rs.2500/- in the ledger which in ordinary course was circled and corrected by the Accused No.1 Limbaji and thus instead of appreciating that there was an error, the accused have been held guilty. It has been argued that on the day concerned of 13th November, 2002, complainant Prabhakar Joshi accepted that Accused No.1 Limbaji was not even available in the Bank, but still even Accused No.1 has been arrayed as accused and has been convicted. It has been submitted that accused No.1 Limbaji, as Branch Manager, was bound to check the records and finding the withdrawal slip clearly mentioning Rupees Twenty Five Thousand in words, had subsequently corrected the ledger entry as he was duty bound. The argument is that Accused Nos.1 to 3 were not knowing that acquitted Accused No.4 had committed similar error in writing the passbook of the complainant and thus the complainant was not informed earlier. According to the learned Advocates, the complainant has tried to take disadvantage of error in writing his passbook, committed by acquitted Accused No.4. It has been submitted that the Bank made internal enquiries and did not find the Accused Nos.1 to 3 to have committed any wrong. According to the learned Advocates, the complainant has tried to take disadvantage of error in writing his passbook, committed by acquitted Accused No.4. It has been submitted that the Bank made internal enquiries and did not find the Accused Nos.1 to 3 to have committed any wrong. It is alleged that the complainant was misguided by subsequent Branch Officer D.G. Khiste when he had gone for withdrawal of amount on 8th February, 2003, due to internal rivalry between the employees. Argument is that when payment was made, Accused No.3, Cashier Ankush had endorsed behind the withdrawal slip, number of notes and denomination of notes, which had been issued, which clearly shows that Rs.25000/- were paid. The entry was made in ordinary course of business. The payments scroll proved by PW-3 Investigating Officer Satish Wagh, at Exhibit 103 also shows that Rs.25000/- were paid to the complainant on 13th November, 2002. Thus, according to the learned Advocates for the Petitioners, the accused were entitled for the benefit of doubt and that they should have been acquitted, as prosecution did not explain how it could be said that there was forgery when there was only genuine mistake. 6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supported the Judgments passed by the subordinate Courts. It has been argued that the evidence of handwriting expert does show that in the withdrawal slip, in the figures, zero was added, converting Rs.2500/- into Rs.25000/-. It is argued that complainant subsequently came to know that he was cheated and so filed the complaint late. 7. At the time of arguments, learned Advocates for Petitioners as well as learned Advocate Shri Patil who appeared for Respondent No.2, original complainant, submitted that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused persons and has no grievance against them. The complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he has compromised with the accused and has no grievance against them and has no objection to quash and set aside the conviction. Learned counsel for Petitioners Accused submitted that in the Sessions Court also the complainant had filed affidavit stating that he has received the amount in dispute and does not want to prosecute the matter further. The counsel submitted that the Sessions Court ignored the affidavit dated 3rd September, 2013 filed in the Sessions Court. I find that such affidavits cannot be accepted and considered in serious offence like the present one. The counsel submitted that the Sessions Court ignored the affidavit dated 3rd September, 2013 filed in the Sessions Court. I find that such affidavits cannot be accepted and considered in serious offence like the present one. Only because the complainant is satisfied, non compoundable offences like the present matter, cannot be ignored. Thus I am not accepting the affidavit for any purpose. 8. However, on merits of the matter, I find that there is much required to be stated. 9. I am aware that this is a Revision Application against concurrent findings of facts and in ordinary course I would not have interfered with such findings of facts. However, while recording such findings of facts, if the trial Court and Sessions Court have ignored material evidence, due to which omission serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused persons, the matter will require interference. 10. If the evidence on record is seen, it can be said that now no more there are disputes regarding certain facts. It is clearly on record that Accused No.2 Sanjivan had helped the complainant Prabhakar in filling up the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51. In the withdrawal slip, as regards amount to be withdrawn, it was written ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ . In the figures ^^#&25000@&^^ was written. The zero in middle, according to PW-2 was subsequently written. How much subsequently? It is not stated on record. Even while writing the withdrawal slip, if an error occurs, a person then and there, can add zero. In this withdrawal slip, on top right corner "6/131" was written by acquitted Accused No.4 Sarjerao, who had also written in the ledger Exhibit 63, the figure of withdrawal as 2500/-. Thus Accused No.4 who has been acquitted by the trial Court on the plea that he had written correct figures (as was the case of prosecution), had endorsed withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 also which clearly in words, mentions ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ i.e. Rupees Twenty Five Thousand. Acquitted Accused No.4 Sarjerao who wrote 2500/- in ledger Exhibit 63, made the same entry in the passbook of the complainant Exhibit 64 also. It is not the evidence of handwriting expert PW-2 Parshuram Dhotare, that there was any overwriting or interpolation as far as regards the words ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ . It is possible to convert Rs.2500/- into Rs.25000/- by adding zero. It is not the evidence of handwriting expert PW-2 Parshuram Dhotare, that there was any overwriting or interpolation as far as regards the words ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ . It is possible to convert Rs.2500/- into Rs.25000/- by adding zero. If the withdrawal slip had been filled for Rs.2500/-, the amount in words in Marathi would have been ^^vMhp gtkj QDr^^ or ^^nksu gtkj ikp”ks QDr^^ i.e. Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred. These words cannot, by interpolation, be corrected to read ^^iapsfol gtkj QDr^^ . There is no explanation or reason brought on record by the prosecution as to how the words of ^^iaps fol gtkj QDr^^ i.e. Rupees Twenty Five Thousand in the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 could be ignored. It does create serious doubt of bona fide mistake while writing by Accused No.2 Sanjivan. The Complainant PW-1 who in F.I.R. claimed that he had set up a utensil shop for his son two months earlier (and thus did require money), did not claim that he was illiterate. Illiteracy is not claimed and there is no reason to presume it when Complainant appears to be claiming to be priest and fluently endorsing his signature in F.I.R. in Marathi. 11. As per Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, applicable to negotiable instruments, if there is difference between the words and figures, the words would prevail. Thus law recognizes that while writing, such errors can take place. Thus, merely by pointing out error or interpolation in the figure, the words could not be ignored. Consequently the act of Accused No.1 Limbaji in correcting ledger Exhibit 63, subsequently, cannot be faulted. As Branch Manager, he was only discharging his duty to ensure that the records are kept correct. It is not that he added zero in Rs.2500/-. He neatly rounded the figure and separately wrote the correct figure of Rs.25000/-. If he had the intention to interpolate the records, he would not have done so. 12. The trial Court in Para 17 of its Judgment, treated entry in the passbook and ledger made by acquitted Accused No.4 as in regular course of business to say that the same has evidential value but doubted the entry made on the back side of the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 by Accused No.3 Ankush, Cashier. 12. The trial Court in Para 17 of its Judgment, treated entry in the passbook and ledger made by acquitted Accused No.4 as in regular course of business to say that the same has evidential value but doubted the entry made on the back side of the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 by Accused No.3 Ankush, Cashier. Evidence of PW-2, handwriting expert, Parshuram Dhotare, shows that on the back side of withdrawal slip the figures indicated the number of notes and denomination of Rs.25000/- paid. Anybody familiar with the Banking system, would know that when payments are made by the cashiers, they in ordinary course, invariably enter on back side of cheques or withdrawal slips the number and denominations of the notes they issued. This is more for internal record. There is nothing that in the entry made on the back side of the withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 there was any over-writing or suspicious interpolation. The payment scroll brought on record by PW-3 Wagh also shows entry against complainant Prabhakar Joshi with his Account No.3487 and the payment of Rs.25000/- in the date of 13th November, 2002. The trial Court and First Appellate Court did not consider this evidence of Exhibit 103 also. 13. Coming back to Exhibit 51 withdrawal slip in which it is claimed that there was forgery, if the evidence of handwriting expert, PW-2, is perused and reasons recorded by him at Exhibit 93 are seen, it was recorded as under:- "1. The Questioned reveal all characteristics of genuine writings. 2. The writings in both the sets show common degree of skill, pen-control and penmanship. 3. The general writing characteristics such as slant, shading, pen-pressure, spacing and proportional sizing show common writing habits. 4. The individual writing habits such as pen-presentation, pen-hold, pen-emphasis reveal common writing tendencies. 5. The diacratic sign show common writing individualities. 6. The natural variation is common." 14. The Courts below did not consider even this evidence of handwriting expert while appreciating the zero added in Exhibit 51. When there was common degree of pen-control and penmanship, no material is brought that zero added subsequently, was not added in the same sitting or just after the error in writing took place. 6. The natural variation is common." 14. The Courts below did not consider even this evidence of handwriting expert while appreciating the zero added in Exhibit 51. When there was common degree of pen-control and penmanship, no material is brought that zero added subsequently, was not added in the same sitting or just after the error in writing took place. If there was a gap and after sometime in subsequent sitting, the zero was to be added, the handwriting expert would have been able to show difference of ink or difference in pen pressure. In the absence of such evidence being brought, merely because zero is added, does not mean that it was not added while the writing was still being done in Exhibit 51. 15. It has been argued that although the accused were charged with the offences to say that the accused acted in furtherance of common intention, there is no material to show common intention. There is no link shown between Accused No.2 Sanjivan, Peon, who helped the complainant in writing the withdrawal slip and Cashier, who paid the amount after passing officer cleared the withdrawal slip and endorsed payment made behind the withdrawal slip which tallied with the amount in words. There is no link shown between Accused Nos.2 and 3 with Accused No.1, who subsequently corrected figure in ledger Exhibit 63, in ordinary course of business. The learned counsel rightly argued that there is no evidence that these persons were acting in concert. Learned counsel relied on the case of L. Chandraiah vs. State of A.P. and another, reported in 2004 ALL M.R.(Cri) Page 224(S.C.) to submit that the accused persons could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. 16. I find that material evidence available in the record was not examined by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The prosecution has not explained the words in withdrawal slip Exhibit 51 and there is serious doubt whether the accused could be stated to have had intention to forge documents of the Bank or to misappropriate amount or to cheat the complainant. Defence of the accused has been that there was a genuine mistake while writing the ledger and passbook by acquitted Accused No.4. Defence of the accused has been that there was a genuine mistake while writing the ledger and passbook by acquitted Accused No.4. I find that as material evidence was not considered, which when taken into consideration creates serious doubt regarding complicity of the accused persons, interference in Revision is called for. The conviction and sentences as imposed by the trial Court, and maintained by the First Appellate Court, need to be set aside, giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 17. For the above reasons, I pass following order:- ORDER (A) Criminal Revision Application Nos. 187 of 2013, 188 of 2013 and 192 of 2013 are allowed. (B) Conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath in Regular Criminal Case No.196 of 2003, under Sections 409, 468 and 474 read with 34 of I.P.C., on the Petitioners, original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 of 2007, 32 of 2007 and 34 of 2007), are quashed and set aside. (C) The Petitioners original Accused Nos. 1 to 3, namely Limbaji Sopan Karle, Sanjivan @ Sanjay Kisan Puri and Ankush Dhondappa Pujari, are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 474 read with 34 of the I.P.C. (D) The Bail Bonds of the Petitioners are cancelled. (E) The amount of fine and compensation, as ordered by the trial Court, if the same has been paid, be returned to the respective Petitioners, original Accused Nos.1 to 3. Petitions allowed.