JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel, for the petitioner. Also heard P.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel, CBI. 2. By preferring this revision petition, under Section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment & order, dated 27.12.2011, passed in Crl. A. No. 05/2008 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Kamrup, at Guwahati, whereby the said learned Court had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment & order, dated 29.12.2007, passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case No. 152c/2013, whereby the accused petitioner was convicted under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, per section, in default, to suffer S.I. for 3 months, for each section. The imprisonment was directed to run concurrently. Prosecution Story, Investigation & Conviction: 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during 1993-1994 at Barpeta Road under the Barpeta P.S., the accused petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with Tapan Kanti Das, Manager In-charge of Oriental Insurance Company (for short 'insurance company'), to obtain an amount of Rs. 12,000/- with intent to cheat the said Insurance Company, using false medical bills under Medi-claim Scheme. It was alleged that the accused petitioner submitted false medical bills which were not issued by the Nightangle Hospital, Guwahati. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner and Sri Tapan Kanti Das, under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). The learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, discharged the accused Tapan Kanti Das from all the charges and then sent the case for trial of the accused petitioner to the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati, and directed the accused-petitioner to appear before the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, on 11.11.2002 vide order, dated 09.09.2002 passed in Special Case No. 69(C)/1998. Accordingly, on 11.11.2002, the case records were received by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati and after appearance of the accused petitioner, she was granted bail. Accordingly, on 11.11.2002, the case records were received by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati and after appearance of the accused petitioner, she was granted bail. Copies were furnished to the accused-petitioner and after hearing both the sides, charges were framed against the accused petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and thereafter, the charges were read over and explained to the accused petitioner to which she pleaded not guilty. Prosecution side examined as many as 13 witnesses, while the defence cross-examined 7 of them. After closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide order, dated 25.09.2007. The accused-petitioner pleaded innocent and declined to examine any witness in defence. After completion of trial and hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, the learned trial Court held the accused-petitioner guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced her, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, as stated above. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati vide the judgment and order, dated 27.12.2011, passed in Crl. A. No. 05/2008. Grounds for Revision: By the instant revision petition, the accused-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the above impugned judgment and order of conviction on the following grounds: (i) The learned Courts below failed to appreciate the law points involved in the case and came to an erroneous finding of guilt of the accused petitioner under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. (ii) The learned Courts below failed to consider the vital aspect that the prosecution had failed to prove by cogent evidence that the accused petitioner had forged the documents and thereby claimed false Medi-claim with the intention to deceive the Insurance Company so as to attract the offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. (iii)The learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erred in law by placing reliance upon the handwriting expert's opinion, in view of absence of any corroborating evidence of the prosecution and furthermore, the prosecution has failed to exhibit the specimen and admitted writings of the accused petitioner. (iv) The prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the accused petitioner submitted the documents for claiming insurance knowing the same to be forged in order to attract the offence under section 471 IPC. (iv) The prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the accused petitioner submitted the documents for claiming insurance knowing the same to be forged in order to attract the offence under section 471 IPC. (v) The prosecution ought to have examined Dr. Anil Kalita under whom the accused petitioner was under treatment in order to establish the fact as to whether he treated her and therefore, non-examination of the said witness has cast a serious doubt upon the prosecution case. (vi) From the evidence of PW-4, the penal Doctor of the Insurance Company, who had submitted Ext-6 (his report) upon making enquiry on the purported forged documents for Medi-claim found in order, as such, the question of using forged documents as genuine or adopting forgery or cheating does not arise. (vii) From the evidence of PWs-1 and 2(Officers of the Insurance Company), who had stated that as per scrutiny form(Ext-4), all the papers were found to be in order and hence the payment was made and as Tapan Kanti Das, the then Branch Manager, who had passed the amount and issued the cheque had already been discharged by the Court of Special Judge, Assam, the accused petitioner may also be given the benefit of acquittal. 4. Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses: In view of the above grounds of revision, I find it expedient to look into the evidence led by the prosecution side in the case. PW-1 Dibakar Sarma, the then Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company, Barpeta Branch, Barpeta, has stated that on 15.03.1994, Ext. 3, the claim form was issued to the accused-petitioner under the signature of Tapan Kanti Das, the then Branch Manager, Insurance Company, Barpeta, in the name of Kailash Chandra Jain to submit the claim and recognized Ext. 4, the scrutiny form, where Ext. 4 (1) is the signature of Tapan Kanti Das. He has further recognized Ext.-5, the cheque, which was issued by the said Branch Manager Tapan Kanti Das for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- in the name of the accused petitioner. In cross-examination, he has, inter-alia, stated that from Ext. 4, it appears that all papers were found to be in order and accordingly, payment was made. He has further stated that after receipt of the claim, it was processed and scrutinised on obtaining report from the penal of Doctors of the Insurance Company. In cross-examination, he has, inter-alia, stated that from Ext. 4, it appears that all papers were found to be in order and accordingly, payment was made. He has further stated that after receipt of the claim, it was processed and scrutinised on obtaining report from the penal of Doctors of the Insurance Company. PW-2 Amarendra Kumar Dhar was the Development Officer. He has recognized Ext-1 the Medi-claim Policy which was issued to the accused-petitioner, where the then Branch Manager Tapan Kanti Das had signed as the authorized signatory. He has further recognized Ext.2, the intimation submitted by the claimant i.e. the accused petitioner, on 20.03.1994, by way of submitting the claim form vide Ext. 6 along with the relevant documents. He has also recognized Ext-4, the scrutiny sheet in respect of the duly filled in claim form vide Ext.6 and Sri Tapan Kanti Das, the then Branch Manager approved the payment of Rs. 12,000/- against the aforesaid claim. Ext-5 is the cheque of Rs. 12,000/- which was issued by Tapan Kanti Das to the accused petitioner as the amount of her aforesaid claim. In cross-examination, the defence has elicited that the claim amount was disbursed after everything was found in order on scrutiny. PW-3 Narayan Chandra Dey was the Vigilance Officer of the Insurance Company. His version is that during his tenure, he investigated into the complaints that some false Medi-claims were passed and paid by the then Branch Manager, Tapan Kanti Das. He, however, could not recall the findings arrived at in his report submitted to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Head office, New Delhi as it was submitted 9-10 years ago. PW-4 Dr. Surajit Bora was the penal Doctor of the Insurance Company in the year, 1994. He was required to examine the documents submitted in support of the Medi-claim form and accordingly, after examination of the claim vide Ext-6, he submitted the report vide Ext. 7. In cross-examination, he, inter-alia, stated that on scrutiny of the papers, he found the disease was serious and accordingly, recommended for reimbursement of the medical bills except some medicines. On scrutiny of the documents, he found the documents submitted by the accused petitioner to be in order and therefore, submitted his opinion report, on being referred the said case by the Insurance Company. On scrutiny of the documents, he found the documents submitted by the accused petitioner to be in order and therefore, submitted his opinion report, on being referred the said case by the Insurance Company. PW-5 Gopi Nath Das has deposed that he was the Manager of Union Bank of India, Barpeta Road Branch from January, 1995 to May, 1996 and the Insurance Company, Barpeta Road Branch was maintaining a current Account being No. 372 in their Bank and the DSP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati seized the same along with all the cheques mentioned in the seizure memo. PW-6 Badal Kumar Sutradhar was working as the Assistant Typist in the Insurance Company at Barpeta Road Branch, during the year 1994. His evidence is that Ext-13 is the Section 64 (V-B) in respect of Claim No. 322302/15 standing in the name of the accused petitioner for the period 13.01.1994 to 12.01.1995 with annual premium of Rs. 950/- under the Medi-claim scheme. He filled up Ext-13 and recognized Ext.14, the letter, dated 23.03.1994, addressed to Dr. Surajit Bora, Guwahati appointing him as the Doctor to examine the Medi-claim filed by the accused-petitioner, where Ext. 14 (1) is the signature of Sri Tapan Kanti Das, the then Branch Manager of the Insurance Company. PW-7 Dinesh Ch. Baruah was the Head Cashier of Bank of India, Barpeta Road Branch, in the year 1994. He has recognized Ext. 15, the Account Opening Form submitted by the accused-petitioner and accordingly, her account No. SB/10245 was opened. He has further recognized Ext. 16, the Collection sheet for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- against her SB Account and Ext. 17 is the pay-in-slip, dated 25.04.1994, through which a cheque of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited in the said account and further, Ext. 18 is the relevant copy of the ledger sheet of the said account. PW-8 Nabin Ch. Rabha was the Record Clerk of the Insurance Company, Barpeta Road Branch, Barpeta and he has recognized the signatures of Tapan Kanti Das vide Exts. 13(1) & Ext-14(1). PW-9 V.G.S. Bhatnagar was the Govt. Handwriting Expert of the Central Forensic Institutes, Kolkata. According to him, he examined the original questioned documents along with the specimen signatures of the accused petitioner and submitted his report recording his opinion vide Ext. 27. The defence declined to cross examine him. 13(1) & Ext-14(1). PW-9 V.G.S. Bhatnagar was the Govt. Handwriting Expert of the Central Forensic Institutes, Kolkata. According to him, he examined the original questioned documents along with the specimen signatures of the accused petitioner and submitted his report recording his opinion vide Ext. 27. The defence declined to cross examine him. PW-10 Badal Kanti Dutta was the then Manager, Nightangle Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati, and he has recognized Ext. 28, the Admission Register of the Hospital for the period w.e.f. 07.03.1994 to 15.03.1994. According to him, all types of entry related to the patient i.e. Registration No., Date of Admission, Patient's Name, Address, Age, Sex and Room No., Name of the authorized Doctor, and Date of Discharge of the patient are entered in the Admission Register. As per Ext.28, from 07.03.1994 to 15.03.1994, no patient by the name of the accused petitioner was admitted in the said Hospital. Ext. 28 is the photocopy of the Admission Register containing 6 sheets. In his cross-examination, PW-10 has denied the defence suggestions that Ext. 28 was not maintained properly and the names of the admitted patients are not shown to avoid tax liabilities and that the admission form of the patient Smt. Rubi Jain was available in the Hospital. PW-11 Chatlabesh Dey was the Sub Divisional Engineer, vigilance, under Telecom District Manager, Guwahati. According to him, on 23.02.1995, he stood witness to the seizure list vide Ext. 29, wherein, Ext. 29 (1) and 29 (2) are his signatures. PW-12 Dambaru Dutta was the Inspector, CBI, ACB, Guwahati, in the year 1997. His version is that the then DSP, CBI, Pradeep Christopher investigated into the instant case and he recorded the statement of Dr. Surajit Bora, the then Penal Doctor of the Insurance Company. On completion of the investigation, he submitted the Charge-Sheet vide Ext. 30. PW-13 Pradeep Christopher was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Guwahati in the year 1995. His evidence is that as per endorsement, he investigated into the FIR, vide Ext. 31 which was registered on 07.02.1995 as Regular Case No. 5 (A)/1995, Shillong. During the course of investigation, he seized the relevant documents and forwarded the questioned documents along with the specimen writings and admitted writings to the Govt. examiner of the questioned documents, Kolkata for examination as well as recorded the statements of the witnesses. 31 which was registered on 07.02.1995 as Regular Case No. 5 (A)/1995, Shillong. During the course of investigation, he seized the relevant documents and forwarded the questioned documents along with the specimen writings and admitted writings to the Govt. examiner of the questioned documents, Kolkata for examination as well as recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he was transferred from Guwahati to Kolkata and the case was handed over to PW-12 Dambaru Dutta, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, Guwahati Unit under Shillong Branch, who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet vide Ext-30. He has stated that after completion of investigation, he found that the accused petitioner submitted false Medi-claim without staying at the Nursing Home. In cross-examination, he, inter-alia, stated that he did not seize the admission form from the Nursing Home and did not examine the concern Doctors of the Night-angle Hospital. Arguments: Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted apart from the grounds of revision cited above, that in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused petitioner in collusion with Tapan Kanti Das, the then Branch Manager of the Insurance Company cheated the said company of Rs. 12,000/- by making a false claim under Medi-claim policy using forged documents as genuine. The said Branch Manager based on thorough scrutiny of the documents by his office and report of the Penal of Doctor disbursed the claim amount to the accused petitioner, but he was discharged of the charges by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati and as such, the charges brought against the accused petitioner cannot be inferred to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that the case is bad for prosecution's failure to examine Dr. A.K. Kalita, under whom the accused petitioner underwent treatment and who signed/counter-signed in the relevant medical documents and therefore, based on surmises, conjectures or fanciful appreciation of evidence cannot be the foundation of conviction of the accused petitioner of the charges and thus, in the backdrop of evidence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused petitioner. Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBI, submitted that both the Courts below have given their concurrent findings of conviction of the accused petitioner of the charges citing cogent and reliable evidence on record. Mr. Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBI, submitted that both the Courts below have given their concurrent findings of conviction of the accused petitioner of the charges citing cogent and reliable evidence on record. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBI, further submitted that the evidence clearly shows that the accused petitioner cheated the Insurance Company by submitting false and fabricated documents on the strength of medi-claim policy which stood in her name. Appreciation of Evidence: 5. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Dibakar Sarma, the then Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company, Barpeta Road Branch, it is noticed that the petitioner was a Medi-claim policy holder, bearing policy No. 322302/ 5/130/MIS/1372/94, for the period 31.01.1994 to 12.01.1995, vide Ext. 1. As per Rules of the Insurance Company, when a claim is made for expenditure incurred towards hospitalization, the policy holder needs to make the claim within 7(seven) days in plain paper and against such application, a formal claim form is provided. Such prescribed format needs to be filled-up by the policy holder and submitted the same to the Insurance Company claiming the amount, supported by documents such as vouchers, bills of medicines and hospital bills. Thereafter, the Insurance Company makes a thorough scrutiny of the aforesaid documents submitted in support of the claim and if satisfied, the Branch Manager approves the claim and payment is made to the policy holder by way of account payee cheque. It is further noticed that after due verification of the documents and obtaining report from the panel of doctors of the Insurance Company on the Medi-claim of the accused-petitioner and having found the same in order, vide Ext-4, the claim was settled at Rs. 12,000/- only, and accordingly, the then Branch Manager, Tapan Kanti Das (since discharged) released the amount, vide Ext-5, the A/C payee cheque to the accused petitioner. 6. PW-2 Amarendra Kr. Dhar, the then Development Officer of the said Insurance Company has corroborated the evidence of PW-1. The evidence of PW-3 Narayan Chandra Dey, who was the Vigilance Officer of the Regional Office of the Insurance Company stated to have made a departmental inquiry into the complaints that the then Branch Manager, Tapan Kanti Das settled some false Medi-claims and submitted report, but he could not recall the findings of his inquiry report. The evidence of PW-3 Narayan Chandra Dey, who was the Vigilance Officer of the Regional Office of the Insurance Company stated to have made a departmental inquiry into the complaints that the then Branch Manager, Tapan Kanti Das settled some false Medi-claims and submitted report, but he could not recall the findings of his inquiry report. His (PW-3) evidence does not reveal whether his inquiry included the alleged false Medi-claim of the present accused petitioner and therefore, his evidence does not appear to be in regard to the charge levelled against the present accused petitioner. Further, it is the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Surajit Bora, who was a panel doctor of the said Insurance Company, stated to have examined the documents filed by the accused petitioner, annexed with her claim form, vide Ext-6 and having found the documents in order, recommended for disbursing the medical bills except some medicines. 7. Apart from the above evidence, PW-5 Gopi Nath Das, the then Manager, Union Bank of India, who was a seizure witness, deposed to have stood witness to the seizure of the said Insurance Company's Current Account, by Ext-7, the seizure memo by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). His (PW-5) evidence does not indicate anything in the matter of prosecution allegations against the accused petitioner. PW-6 Badal Kumar Sutradhar, the then Assistant Typist of the said Insurance Company Branch Office at Barpeta Road stated that by Ext-14, the letter, dated 22.03.1994, the doctor was appointed, to examine the medical documents filed by the accused petitioner in support of her claim and the defence declined to cross-examine him as nothing adverse had come against the claimant accused petitioner vide his report Ext. 6, dated 24.03.1994. Further, the evidence of PW-7 Dinesh Chandra Boruah, who was the Head Cashier of the Barpeta Road Branch of the Bank of India, shows that the settled amount of Rs. 12,000/- was credited to the account of the accused petitioner. The evidence of PW-8 Nabin Chandra Rava, the then Record Clerk of the said Insurance Company, Barpeta Road Branch, appears to be not significant to the prosecution as he only identified Exts. 13 & 14 and recognized the signatures of Tapan Kanti Das therein. 12,000/- was credited to the account of the accused petitioner. The evidence of PW-8 Nabin Chandra Rava, the then Record Clerk of the said Insurance Company, Barpeta Road Branch, appears to be not significant to the prosecution as he only identified Exts. 13 & 14 and recognized the signatures of Tapan Kanti Das therein. On the other hand, PW-11 Dambaru Dutta, the then Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), who submitted the charge-sheet, vide Ext-30 in the case, did not investigate the case except recording the statement of PW-3 Dr. Surajit Borah. PW-12 DSP Pradeep Christopher of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who investigated into the case, testified to the formal aspects of the substantial part of the investigation, he undertook. 8. Turning to the evidence of PW-10 Badal Kanti Dutta, the then Manager, Nightangle Hospital, Guwahati, it appears that the accused petitioner was not admitted for treatment in the said Nursing Home from 07.03.1994 to 15.03.1994, vide Ext-28, the Admission Register, which period relates to the period of claim of treatment by the accused petitioner vide Ext-6, the duly filled-in claim form. However, it may significantly be noted that the certificates and bills/Cash Memos, prescriptions of the Nightangle Hospital, which were issued/counter-signed by the Doctor, namely, Dr. A.K. Kalita has not been examined by the prosecution in the case despite being apparently relevant to ascertain the genuineness or falsity of the exhibited documents. Therefore, in the absence of any direct reliable evidence as to the accused petitioner committing forgery, no conviction of the charges can rightly be based solely on the basis of opinion of the handwriting expert (PW-9) and the aforesaid documents of the Nursing Home, which is a private institution. From the evidence of PW. 9 V.G.S. Bhatnagar, the Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, Kolkata, it is found that he examined the specimen signatures purportedly that of the accused petitioner vide Ext. 20 with those of the questioned signatures and held the opinion that those questioned signatures were that of the accused petitioner only. Here, it may be mentioned that a handwriting expert's evidence cannot be acted upon unless substantially corroborated by evidence. The evidence on record does not reveal that the accused petitioner, a Medi-claim policy holder, committed any act of forgery of documents with intent to cheat the said Insurance Company by way of making false Medi-claim and accordingly, had withdrawn an amount of Rs. The evidence on record does not reveal that the accused petitioner, a Medi-claim policy holder, committed any act of forgery of documents with intent to cheat the said Insurance Company by way of making false Medi-claim and accordingly, had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 12,000/-, disbursed to her, on clear satisfaction of the authority after thorough scrutiny. The crux of the whole prosecution case rests on the allegation of forgery and using the forged documents as genuine to make claim of compensation under the Medi-claim policy by the accused petitioner and these facts have been utterly failed to be established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution for non-examination of Dr. A. K. Kalita and the discharged accused Tapan Kanti Das, who approved the claim of the accused petitioner after due scrutiny of the relevant documents allegedly submitted by the accused petitioner. Findings 9. In view of the above reasons, the criminal revision petition stands allowed. 10. The impugned judgment & order, dated 27.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2008, arising out of Special Case No. 152c of 2003 of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assam, Guwahati, is set aside acquitting the accused petitioner of the charges giving the benefit of doubt. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment & order.