JUDGMENT : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Vide judgment dated 30.9.1994 the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Sections 408 and 420 IPC and for 2 years under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Court of Session maintained the conviction under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC, but set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, while working as Manager of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited, Rajikawas the petitioner in connivance with co-accused Jog Singh (died during the pendency of trial) prepared a forged loan application (Ex.P/4) in the name of Satidan Singh by forging the signatures and affixing his thumb impressions (purporting to be of Satidan Singh) though Satidan Singh was no more and died six years earlier. On the basis of the forged documents and by forging the signatures of complainant Kheem Singh, who was Chairman of the said Samiti, he managed to obtain a cheque of Rs. 2500/- and misappropriated the amount. 3. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced, the learned trial Magistrate found that the petitioner has forged documents in the name of Satidan Singh and obtained a sum of Rs. 2500/- by playing fraud and adopting unfair means. These findings are affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Also perused the impugned judgment and the materials available on record. 5. The complainant Kheem Singh, PW 3 had lodged the complaint Ex.P/13 alleging therein that the petitioner along with co-accused Jog Singh made a forged loan application (Ex.P/4) in name of Satidan Singh after putting forged signatures and thumb impressions of Satidan Singh and other witnesses, though at that time Satidan Singh was not alive. After preparation of said forged loan documents, he managed to obtain Rs. 2500/- by playing fraud and misappropriated the same. 6. PW-3 Kheem Singh stated in his statement that in the year 1984 he was posted as Chairman of the Samiti and the petitioner was working as Manager of the Samiti. After preparation of said forged loan documents, he managed to obtain Rs. 2500/- by playing fraud and misappropriated the same. 6. PW-3 Kheem Singh stated in his statement that in the year 1984 he was posted as Chairman of the Samiti and the petitioner was working as Manager of the Samiti. At that time, petitioner has produced two bonds before him in the name of Soma and Tara. Soma had died 5-6 years earlier. He asked the petitioner that when Soma had already died, why loan application was being processed in his name and he denied putting his signatures on the said loan application of Soma. After that, he went to his house. Later on, when he checked the record, it was found that one receipt in the name of Satidan S/o Juth singh was made for Rs. 2500/-, though Satidan was already dead. He asked the petitioner regarding this amount and upon this the petitioner told him that this amount was taken by co-accused Jog Singh. He further stated that in the meeting the petitioner told him that he put his forged signatures on the cheque and also he gave him a letter Ex.P/14A in this regard, in which the petitioner has categorically admitted that he gave cheque of Rs. 2500/- in the name of Satidan to co-accused Jog Singh. The cheque bears his signatures and not of Chairman Kheem Singh and he took responsibility regarding this amount. He also stated that Ex.P/11 (loan payment order) did not bear his signatures. 7. PW-1 Hari Singh has stated that he knows the petitioner and could identify his signatures and also of Satidan Singh, who has died 10 to 11 years earlier. Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 bear the signatures of the petitioner. He further stated that he did not identify on papers Satidan Singh in 1984, because he died earlier. On Ex.P/4 he did not put his signatures and even his brother Satidan Singh also did not put his signatures on it. He further stated that petitioner told him in the presence of the villagers that all the documents were in his hand and co-accused Jog Singh has taken the amount from the bank. 8. PW-8 Puran Singh has stated that in the year 1984 he was posted as Sarpanch. He further stated that petitioner told him in the presence of the villagers that all the documents were in his hand and co-accused Jog Singh has taken the amount from the bank. 8. PW-8 Puran Singh has stated that in the year 1984 he was posted as Sarpanch. He has issued a certificate Ex.P/23 with regard to death of Satidan Singh and it bears his signature at place "A to B". 9. PW-7 Abdul Majid, IO has stated that during investigation he recorded evidence of witnesses Kheem Singh, Jagdish Prasad, Kewal Ram, Mool Singh and Hari Singh and during investigation he has taken specimen signatures of petitioner and Hari Singh and the same were sent to FSL for examination. After examination, the reports Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/20 were received by him. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is proved that the petitioner has managed to make forged documents including loan application Ex.P/4, loan payment order Ex.P/11 etc. after putting forged signatures of Satidan (who has already died as is evident from Ex.P/23), complainant and other witnesses. This fact is corroborated from the hand writing expert reports Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/20 wherein it was clarified that on bond register at page No. 16 the signatures were not of Mool Singh but thumb impressions were of petitioner and also on loan application and loan payment order, the signatures were not of Hari Singh, but of petitioner and on Ex.P/11, the signatures of Kheem Singh were also found to be forged. It is also established from letter Ex.P/14A in which the petitioner has clearly admitted that he gave cheque of Rs. 2500/- in the name of Satidan to co-accused Jog Singh. The cheque bears his signatures and not of Chairman Kheem Singh and he took his responsibility regarding this amount. 11. In view of the above, I find no case to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below against the petitioner. The findings are based on correct appreciation of materials and evidence available on record. I find no infirmity or illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. 12. The petition is dismissed.