JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 27.08.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam convicting the accused-appellant under Section 468 of the IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause, rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause for offence under Section 471 of the IPC and also rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause for offence under Section 420 of the IPC with further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. 2. The fact leading to the case is that during the period from 1998-1999, the Regional Passport Office, Guwahati was headed by Shri DK Purkayastha. Around the same time, one Shri PS Cholavia was working as Office Assistant in the aforesaid office. On 05.01.1999, the Regional Passport Office, Guwahati headed by Shri DK Purkayastha filed a complaint with the SP, CBI, alleging that Shri PS Cholavia in conspiracy with other persons fabricated some false documents caused those documents to be processed in the aforesaid office, used those documents as genuine as well and practicing fraud upon his colleagues and Superior Officer, caused passport to be issued in the name of one Shri Sumer Singh, who was suspected to be fictitious personality. 3. On the basis of above complaint, an FIR was drawn up by SP, CBI, Guwahati. It registered a case, thereon as well, vide RC Case No. 1 (A)/99-SHG and ordered one Shri Kailash Barman, Inspector CBI to investigate the case. 4. Being so ordered, Shri Barman started investigating the case, examined number of witnesses, seized various documents and conducted search at different places. But, before could he complete the investigation, he was transferred and as such, remaining part of investigation was done by Shri AK Saha, Deputy SP, CBI and in due course, Shri Saha submitted charge-sheet under Section 120 (B)/468/471/420 of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act against the accused persons, namely, Shri PS Cholavia, Md. Mafizal Karim and Shri Sumer Singh, alleging that Shri Cholavia along with other accused persons, cause the then Regional Passport Officer and some other office staff to issue large number of passports in the name of fictitious army personnel on fabricating false documents and used them as genuine and in that process, he made good fortune for himself and his other associates 5. After exhausting all the required legal formalities, the learned trial court framed a formal charge against the accused-appellant under Sections 120 (B)/468/471/420 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act to which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses in the trial. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and in his such statement, he is heard denying the accusation levelled against him. He also declined to adduce evidence. From the cross-examination of the witnesses, it appears that he has taken the plea of total denial. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 120 (B) of the IPC and convicted in respect of the other offences with which he was charged, as indicated above. 8. I have scanned the evidence on record. I have heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel assisted by Mrs. B Goswami for the appellant as well as Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI. 9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has raised the point that the signatures of the accused-appellant in the offending documents has not been proved and particularly referred to the evidence of PW8, who although deposed in his examination-in-chief that the signatures at Ext.-17 to Ext.33 were of the accused-appellant yet in his cross-examination he deposed that the signatures aforesaid appears to be in the handwriting of the accused-appellant as those documents were not written in his presence. 10. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant, referring to such evidence, canvassed the only argument before this Court that if the signatures of the accused-appellant is not proved, he could not be said to have committed the offences alleged against him in respect of the aforesaid documents, involved in this case. 11. 10. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant, referring to such evidence, canvassed the only argument before this Court that if the signatures of the accused-appellant is not proved, he could not be said to have committed the offences alleged against him in respect of the aforesaid documents, involved in this case. 11. In view of this argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, this Court proposes to deal with the same only, as on facts the occurrence is nowhere denied. If it is found that the signature in the offending documents, i.e., Ext.-17 to Ext.-33 are of the accused-appellant, then the accused-appellant has no defence. 12. Now, with reference to the argument of the learned counsel for the accused- appellant, this Court is to look into the evidence as required to prove the signatures of the accused-appellant at Ext.-17 to Ext.-33. 13. The evidence of PW8, referred to by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is found to be correct. Whatever is argued, as indicated above, is on the basis of the evidence of PW8. It is a fact that such is the evidence of PW8. 14. Now, the fact remains that the disputed signatures of the accused-appellant were sent for Forensic Science Examination, and the PW17, who is the Forensic Expert, deposed in its evidence that the documents, pertaining to RC. Case No. 1 (A)/99-SHG were sent to their laboratory by SP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati which were received in his office on 09.09.1999. Alongwith those documents, question documents, marked Q.1 to Q.25, specimen handwriting, marked as S-1 to S-113 and admitted handwritings, marked A-1 to A-15 were sent to their office for opinion. He received those documents from GEQD and he put those documents under some scientific examination and came to the finding that author of Q.1 to Q.66, Q.68 to Q.85, author of A-1 to A-16 and the author of S-1 to S-32 is one and same. Accordingly, he had given his opinion, vide Ext.110. There is no dispute that handwriting of the accused-appellant was obtained by the Investigating Police Officer for examination of the Forensic Science Laboratory and from the report, marked as, Ext.-110, it appears that the handwriting in the question documents were examined and compared with the admitted handwriting of the accused-appellant and found that both the handwritings are of the same person, i.e., the accused-appellant 15. It is a fact that the Ext.-110 is the opinion only, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. But, this fact taken together with the evidence of PW8 leads this Court with no doubt that it was none but the accused-appellant in whose handwriting the alleged documents were forged or fabricated. Because the PW8 never said that it was not the accused-appellant whose handwritings those were, but, according to him, it appeared to be the handwritings of the accused-appellant, which is corroborated by the opinion tendered by the forensic expert, vide, Ext.-110. 16. That being so, in the considered view of this Court, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant on this count, is found to have no merit. 17. On facts, the evidence of the other witnesses has not been disputed by the accused-appellant even. Therefore, this Court has not travelled through the other aspects of the fact of the case and centred its decision only on the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 18. So, in view of the above, the order of the learned trial court, recording conviction, is found to be based on evidence on record requiring no interference. So far the sentence is concerned, considering the fact that this is an appeal pending since 2007 as well as the background fact of the case, this Court is of the view that if the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years on each count, as imposed by the learned trial court, is reduced to substantive rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year will meet the ends of justice, retaining the fine and the default clause as ordered by the learned trial court. 19. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year on each count under Sections 468/471/420 of the IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. The sentences shall run concurrently. The fine of Rs. 2,000/-, imposed on each count, aforesaid is retained alongwith its default clause. 20. The appeal is partly allowed. 21. The accused-appellant will surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the sentence within a period of 1 (one) month from today. The period undergone during trial and investigation shall be set off against the substantive sentence. 22. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.