JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of CRA-D-505-DBA-2004, CRA-D-506-DBA-2004, CRA-D-507-DBA-2004, CRA-D-508-DBA-2004, CRA-D-509-DBA-2004, CRA-D-510-DBA-2004 and CRA-D-511-DBA-2004 as all theappeals have arisen out of FIR No.90 dated 12.07.1994 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur wherein sevenseparate challans were presented and the learned Sub Divisional JudicialMagistrate, Dhuri, namely, the trial Court has acquitted the accused in all thecases giving rise to this batch of appeals. The facts are taken from the lead casei.e. CRA-D-505-DBA-2004. 2. The Chairman of Malwa Gramin Bank visited the Branch of thesaid Bank at village Bhalwan on 09.02.1994 and found that 7 loan casessponsored by the Schedule Caste Corporation, Sangrur were adjusted within aperiod of six months from the date of disbursement of the loan amount. TheManagement of the Bank was asked to scrutinize the relevant documentswhereupon it emerged out that (i) the applications sent by the Scheduled Casteand Land Development Corporation neither bore yellow card number nor anyattestation by Sarpanch or Namberdar of the village on the back of theapplications thus necessary columns of the applications were left blank; (ii) theofficials of the Scheduled Caste and Land Development Corporation did notmake verification and the applications were sponsored in respect of the personswho were not in fact residents of village Bhalwan; (iii) the subsidy in thesecases was sent to the branch at Bhalwan without verifying the necessary factsand it appears that the loans were disbursed in connivance with the officials ofthe Corporation and of the Bank just to misappropriate the subsidy amount; and(iv) all the facts in respect of these loan cases were not ascertained and loanswere disbursed in an irregular manner. 3. The matter was referred to the police authorities who then lodgedthe FIR in question and started investigation in the matter. 4. The respondents-accused were suspected to be involved. Theallegation against them was that they had forged the loan applications ofloanees, namely, Surjit Kaur, Bir Singh, Chand Singh, Amarjit Kaur, BaljitKaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Inderpal Kaur and deposited the loan amountpurported to have been taken by them from the Bank within a short durationand in this manner, they misappropriated the subsidy amount as was admissibleagainst each loan account. As per the prosecution case, the 7 loanees were notresidents of village Bhalwan. 5. As per the prosecution case, the 7 loanees were notresidents of village Bhalwan. 5. After presentation of challans, the trial court found that prima faciecase punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was madeout against the accused. The charges were accordingly framed. As they pleadednot guilty, the trial court permitted both sides to lead their respective evidence. 6. The question which thus arose for consideration of the trial courtwas whether the accused in collusion and connivance with each other enteredinto a criminal conspiracy and thereby forged the documents and got the loansanctioned in the name of above-stated 7 persons and misappropriated thesubsidy amount? 7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Baldev Singhwho claimed that Amarjit Kaur had taken loan from the Malwa Gramin Bank,but he had not put his signatures as witness on her loan forms though on theloan documents, name of Baldev Singh is written as a witness but the same arenot his signatures. 8. PW2 Ranjit Singh made a similar statement and claimed that hehas seen the loan forms of Amarjit Kaur wherein there are signatures of RanjitSingh but the same are not his signatures. 9. PW3 Joginder Singh – Executive Officer of the Malwa GraminBank, Head Office Sangrur stated that the recovery memos Ex.P-A, Ex.P-B &Ex.P-C and the posting orders of the accused Baljit Singh and Prem Chandwere taken by police in possession. He identified his signatures on the recoverymemo Ex.P-C. 10. Bhupinder Singh PW4 (wrongly mentioned as PW3) JuniorAssistant District Manager PSCFC Sangrur also appeared as PW4 and statedthat he was posted as Junior Assistant and on 30.12.1994, he handed over theattested copies of posting orders of Neelam Kumari, District Manager, Sangrur– one of the accused who passed away during the pendency and this appeal quaher has been rendered abated. He also identified signatures of Anokh SinghBachittar, the then District Manager, as he used to see him reading and writing. 11. PW5 Surinder Pal Singh stated that he was posted as AssistantManager in Malwa Gramin Bank from the year 1993 to 1997 and that a letterwas written by Harjit Singh Sehgal, the then Chairman of Malwa Gramin BankSangrur asking him to hold enquiry whereupon he visited the Branch atBhalwan and examined the record. 11. PW5 Surinder Pal Singh stated that he was posted as AssistantManager in Malwa Gramin Bank from the year 1993 to 1997 and that a letterwas written by Harjit Singh Sehgal, the then Chairman of Malwa Gramin BankSangrur asking him to hold enquiry whereupon he visited the Branch atBhalwan and examined the record. It then came to his notice that loan amountwas disbursed under the scheme of Punjab Scheduled Caste and LandDevelopment Corporation to the persons not belonging to Village Bhalwan.Under the scheme, the identification was required to be made by Sarpanch andthen the form was to be sent to Manager, Punjab State Land Development,Sangrur and it was to be returned back by the Manager but in the 7 cases, nosuch procedure was followed. It was found in the enquiry that loan amount wasreturned within six months of disbursement and that there was subsidy ofRs. 5000 each which was misappropriated by the accused. The witness alsoclaimed that accused Prem Chand and Baljeet Singh forged the signatures onthe cheques for payment as was found by him in his report Ex.P-C. 12. PW6 Mohan Singh claimed that he is working as MedicalPractitioner in village Bhojwali since 20 years. He identified his signatures onthe back side of cheques bearing No.008826, 008828, 008830 and 008834. 13. PW7 Jarnail Singh, Senior Assistant office of DeputyCommissioner brought the enquiry report dated 16.03.1994 which was preparedby Mrs. Indu Malhotra, DROG, Sangrur and he identified the signatures of Mrs.Indu Malhotra as he used to see her reading and writing. Copy of the report wastaken on record as Ex.P-4. 14. ASI Jangir Singh appeared as PW8 and claimed that he was postedin Anti Corruption Staff, Sangrur on 29.07.1994. He enquired the case andduring enquiry, he took into police custody the cheques, application forms andother documents relating to loanees besides statements of various concernedpersons. The other documents taken by him into custody during the course ofenquiry including posting orders of the accused etc. were duly exhibited. 15. Mahesh Kumar Clerk-cum-Cashier, Malwa Gramin Bank appearedas PW9 and produced the record relating to loanees Ex.P-X and recovery memoEx.P-A/1. 16. HC Harbans Singh (PW10) who was posted at Anti Fraud Staff,Sangrur received a letter No.8537 dated 15.07.1995 for depositing the same tothe Forensic Laboratory, Chandigarh, which was deposited on 20.07.1995 andofficials of the Laboratory handed over him one sealed packet which he handedover to ASI Jangir Singh on 21.05.1995. 17. 16. HC Harbans Singh (PW10) who was posted at Anti Fraud Staff,Sangrur received a letter No.8537 dated 15.07.1995 for depositing the same tothe Forensic Laboratory, Chandigarh, which was deposited on 20.07.1995 andofficials of the Laboratory handed over him one sealed packet which he handedover to ASI Jangir Singh on 21.05.1995. 17. The other witnesses, namely, Mrs.Indu Malhotra, SHO RajinderSingh, ASI Nachattar Singh were not examined being unnecessary whereasSarpanch Inder Singh was statedly won over by the accused. The prosecutionthus closed its evidence. 18. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPCin which they reiterated their innocence and alleged false implication. 19. In defence, the accused examined Hakam Singh s/o MohinderSingh as DW1 who is statedly a resident of village Bhalwan and he deposedthat Surjit Kaur, Chand Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Baljit Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur,Inderpal Kaur all are residents of village Bhalwan and he knew thempersonally. He further deposed that these persons took loan from the Bank andutilized the same for the purpose for which the loan was taken. 20. DW2 Bikram Lal, Manager, Malwa Gramin Bank, Bhalwanbrought the original letter No.273 dated 09.12.2002 whereby the Chairman ofMalwa Gramin Bank was informed regarding recovery of loan amount. Theseparate intimation sent on 10.12.1992 informing the District Manager, SCCorporation that the loan account was closed within a period of one year wasalso produced by the witness. 21. Sardara Singh who was the District Manager of Punjab ScheduledCaste and Land Development and Financial Corporation at Sangrur appeared asDW3 and produced the letter No.15760 dated 30.01.2003 whereby theinstructions were given that the loan should be recommended only afterverification of yellow cards. He also identified the signatures of Ranjit Singhthe then Director and adduced into evidence Photostat copies of Ex.D-6 &Ex.D-7. 22. DW4 Dharminder Kumar claimed that he was working as Class IVemployee in the Malwa Gramin Bank and he knew the 7 loanees personally andthat the above-stated persons signed the cheques in his presence and thecheques were distributed to the loanees in his presence only. 23. Surjit Singh Assistant District Manager posted at Patiala appearedas DW5 and deposed that he was transferred from Sangrur to Faridkot on05.05.1993 and the record regarding inspection report of loan case of entireDistrict Sangrur for the year 1992-93 was not in his possession and the samemust be in the office at Sangrur. 24. 23. Surjit Singh Assistant District Manager posted at Patiala appearedas DW5 and deposed that he was transferred from Sangrur to Faridkot on05.05.1993 and the record regarding inspection report of loan case of entireDistrict Sangrur for the year 1992-93 was not in his possession and the samemust be in the office at Sangrur. 24. The question which fell for consideration of the trial court asformulated in para-6 of this order thus has to be answered in the light of aboveevidence. Trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents andin our considered view rightly so for two reasons. 25. Firstly, it is not in dispute that Hakam Singh s/o Mohinder Singh(DW1) has categorically stated that he is a permanent resident of villageBhalwan and he personally knew Surjit Kaur, Chand Singh, Amarjit Kaur,Baljit Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, Inderpal Kaur and that all of them are residents ofBhalwan. In the cross-examination, not even a suggestion was made to thiswitness that these persons are not residents of village Bhalwan. The veryfoundation of the prosecution case that the loan amount was disbursed to fakeentities of village Bhalwan thus collapsed in the light of the statement of thiswitness. The only other crucial issue is with regard to the forgery of signatureson the cheques etc. for which the prosecution has placed reliance on the reportsubmitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab dated 14.07.1995. 26. We have gone through the contents of report dated 14.07.1995duly signed by the Assistant Director (Documents) Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, the conclusion drawn are to the followingeffect:- “I have carefully and thoroughly examined the redenclosed questioned signatures and initials stamped andmarked Q1 to Q108 and have compared them with therelevant standard signatures, initials and writings from theoriginal documents in all aspects of handwritingidentification and detection of forgery with the help ofscientific aids and it has been concluded that: 1. The person who wrote the red enclosed specimensignatures stamped and marked A1 to A6 an S1 to S13 alsowrote the red enclosed questioned signatures similarlystamped and marked Q2, Q7, Q8, Q15, Q19, Q24, Q25 andQ36 to Q38. 2. The red enclosed questioned signatures/initialsstamped and marked Q1, Q4, Q6, Q9, Q10, Q12,Q13,Q17,Q18,Q21,Q22,Q23,Q27,Q29,Q33,Q35 and Q40when compared with the specimen signatures similarlystamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S13 showsimilarities but it has not been possible to express anydefinite opinion regarding their common authorship orotherwise due to insufficient data. 3. 2. The red enclosed questioned signatures/initialsstamped and marked Q1, Q4, Q6, Q9, Q10, Q12,Q13,Q17,Q18,Q21,Q22,Q23,Q27,Q29,Q33,Q35 and Q40when compared with the specimen signatures similarlystamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S13 showsimilarities but it has not been possible to express anydefinite opinion regarding their common authorship orotherwise due to insufficient data. 3. It has not been possible to express any definiteopinion on the questioned initials markedQ3,Q5,Q11,Q14,Q16,Q20,Q26,Q28,Q30,Q31,Q32,Q34,Q39and Q41 in comparison with the standard signaturessimilarly stamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S13. 4. It has not been possible to express any definiteopinion on the questioned initials stamped and marked Q42to Q57 in comparison with the standard initials similarlystamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S13 as thequestioned initials are limited in extent. 5. The red enclosed questioned initials stamped andmarked Q58 to Q81 when compared with the specimeninitials stamped and marked S43 to S50 agree in movementand design but it has not been possible to express anydefinite opinion on the questioned initials marked Q58 toQ81 as the questioned initials are limited in extent. 6. The red enclosed questioned signatures marked Q82to Q89 when compared with the specimen signaturesmarked A7 to A12 and S14 to S20 show similarities but toevaluate these similarities properly and for a definiteopinion suitable and sufficient specimen/admitted signaturesof the person concerned in “English” and near about theperiod of questioned signatures and of similar model arerequired. 7. The person who wrote the red enclosed specimenwritings stamped and marked S29 to S42 also wrote the redenclosed questioned signatures similarly stamped andmarked Q90 to Q97. 8. The person who wrote the red enclosed specimenwritings stamped and marked A13 to A54 and S21 to S28also wrote the red enclosed questioned signatures similarlystamped and marked Q98 to Q104, Q107 and Q108. 9. It has not been possible to express any definiteopinion on the questioned signatures marked Q105 andQ106 in comparison with the specimen writings similarlystamped and marked A13 to A54 and S21 to S28. Note:- Detailed reasons in support of the opinionexpressed above vide para (1), (7) and (8) will be submittedat the time of evidence if needed.” 27. 9. It has not been possible to express any definiteopinion on the questioned signatures marked Q105 andQ106 in comparison with the specimen writings similarlystamped and marked A13 to A54 and S21 to S28. Note:- Detailed reasons in support of the opinionexpressed above vide para (1), (7) and (8) will be submittedat the time of evidence if needed.” 27. The trial court has discarded the above-stated report for noncomplianceof Section 293 CrPC as neither the author of the report namely, Assistant Director (Document) has been examined as a witness nor any otherofficer, well conversant with the facts of the case who could satisfactorilydepose in Court on behalf of the author of the report, has also been produced asa witness. The trial court viewed that the contents of the report are not per seadmissible and cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by the expert authorof the report or any other officer well conversant with the facts or the contentsthereof. 28. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this contentiousissue and assuming that the officer in the rank of Assistant Director would fallat Sr.No.E of sub-Section (4) of Section 293 CrPC and the report submitted bythe Scientific expert of such designation can thus be per se admissible, we areof the view that the contents of the report, as reproduced above, do notconclusively and definitely establish that there was any forgery of signatures ortampering with the entries in the application forms at the instance of theaccused persons. In respect of most of the disputed signatures/initials, theexpert has opined that it has not been possible to express any definite opinionregarding their common authorship or otherwise due to insufficient data. Hehas further opined that it has not been possible to express any definite opinionon the question initials marked Q58 to Q81 as the questioned initials arelimited in extent. The similarity in the signatures also could not be properlyevaluated for giving a definite opinion for the reasons mentioned in para 6 ofthe report reproduced above. As the FSL report in question also does not bringhome the guilt beyond any shadow of doubt, the impugned order does not callfor any interference by this Court. We thus do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.