JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. The respondent Naresh Chandra Sahoo faced trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack in Vigilance G.R. Case No.16 of 1993 for offences punishable under sections 471 read with section 465 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 30.08.1991 he fraudulently produced/used a forged marksheet as genuine before the Managing Committee of Anchalika Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur, Narsinghpur (hereafter ‘the College’) showing to have secured total marks 433 in Oriya M.A. Examination held in July 1980 although he had actually secured total marks 401 in Oriya examination held in July 1979 as per the tabulation register of the University which he knew at the time of using it to be a forged document and thereby got himself selected and appointed for the post of lecturer in Oriya in the aforesaid College in U.G.C. scale of pay. He was further charged under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that he cheated the Managing Committee of the College inducing them to get himself appointed and deliver pay in U.G.C. scale which was the property of the said institution and converted the same to his own use. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 has been pleased to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent and accordingly acquitted him of all the charges. The State of Odisha, G.A Department has preferred this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by Sri Sarbeswar Kar (P.W.5), Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack on 30.03.1993 before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack is that he received reliable information that the respondent had got himself selected and appointed as lecturer in Oriya of the College by using forged documents as genuine and accordingly he took up enquiry. During enquiry, it was ascertained that the respondent appeared as a private candidate in M.A. Oriya Part-I Examination in July 1979 having Roll No.219183 and he secured 212 marks in the four papers out of total marks of 400. In Paper-I, he scored 48 marks, in Paper-II 54 marks, in Paper-III 58 marks and in Paper IV 52 marks. During enquiry, it was ascertained that the respondent appeared as a private candidate in M.A. Oriya Part-I Examination in July 1979 having Roll No.219183 and he secured 212 marks in the four papers out of total marks of 400. In Paper-I, he scored 48 marks, in Paper-II 54 marks, in Paper-III 58 marks and in Paper IV 52 marks. The respondent also appeared in Part-II of the M.A. Oriya examination having Roll No.219630 and he secured 189 marks out of total 400 marks. In Paper-V, he scored 51 marks, in Paper-VI 59 marks, in Paper-VII 39 marks and in Paper-VIII 40 marks and therefore, the total marks which he had secured in M.A. Oriya examination was 212+189=401 marks out of total 800 marks which was just 50 percent. The enquiry further revealed that with a view to get himself appointed as a lecturer in Oriya, the respondent managed to procure a forged mark sheet showing it to have been issued from Utkal University which has held in month of July 1980 and as per the said mark sheet, he had secured total marks of 433 out of 800 marks and in Paper-VII, it is shown in the mark sheet that the respondent had secured 59 marks and in Paper-VIII he had secured 52 marks and therefore, he has enhanced the marks in Paper-VII from 39 to 59 i.e. 20 marks and in Paper-VIII from 40 to 52 i.e. 12 marks and in total 32 marks in aggregate, making a total of 433 marks i.e. about 54 percent of the total marks of 800. It was further revealed during inquiry that the respondent knowing fully well that the mark-sheet is a forged one, he utilized the same for being selected and appointed as lecturer from 30.03.1981 and got U.G.C. scale of pay. On the basis of such first information report, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack directed the Officer in Charge of the Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack to register a case and accordingly, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 of 1993 was registered on 30.03.1981 under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sri Nibarana Samal (P.W.18), Inspector of Vigilance, Cuttack was directed to take up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, P.W.18 visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized different articles under seizure lists Exts.2, 12, 22 and 23 and also seized certain documents under seizure lists Exts.37, 38 and 39. After obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 20.07,1994 against the respondent under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence plea of the respondent who examined himself as D.W.1 is one of false implication and it is his case that he obtained the mark sheet after passing the M.A. Part-II examination in the year 1980 making an application in the issue counter of Utkal University. It is his case that he has secured 221 marks in the Part-II examination and not 189 marks as per Ext.17. It is further pleaded that since the tabulation register of the issue section has not been seized, his genuine marks could not come out. 4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. P.W.1 Loknath Panda was the President of the Governing Body of the College where the respondent was serving as a lecturer in Oriya. He stated that the respondent applied for the post of lecturer and got selected and he furnished the mark sheet of his M.A. examination from Utkal University. He further stated that for the selection of lecturer, a candidate must have to secure 54 percent of marks in his M.A. examination. P.W.2 Rabi Sankar Rana was the Head Clerk of the College and he stated about the seizure of the resolution book of the College and personal file of the respondent under seizure list Ext.2. He took the resolution book in zima under zimanama Ext.3 P.W.3 Kanduri Sahoo was the Secretary of the College and he stated about issuance of appointment letter in favour of the respondent as lecturer in Oriya in the College after it was approved by the Governing Body. He proved the resolution of the Governing Body marked as Ext.4. P.W.4 Srinibas Mishra was the Principal of the College and he has stated that during course of enquiry, the enquiry officer had taken two mark sheets of the respondent from him which were available in the personal file of the respondent and those two mark sheets related to M.A. Part-I and M.A. Part-II Oriya examination. P.W.4 Srinibas Mishra was the Principal of the College and he has stated that during course of enquiry, the enquiry officer had taken two mark sheets of the respondent from him which were available in the personal file of the respondent and those two mark sheets related to M.A. Part-I and M.A. Part-II Oriya examination. P.W.5 Sarbeswar Kar is the informant in the case who conducted enquiry, visited the College of the respondent as well as Utkal University to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation of forgery committed by the respondent. P.W.6 Aditya Kumar Panda was the lecturer in the College and he stated about the collection of the specimen handwriting of the respondent in six sheets on 29.04.1993. P.W.7 Chaitanya Charan Behera was the Section Officer, Director of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar who seized the original mark sheets of M.A. Oriya examination of the respondent i.e. Part-I and Part-II under seizure list Ext.12. The original mark sheets have been marked as Exts.13 and 14. P.W.8 Dr. Prafulla Kumar Mishra was the Assistant Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar who also enquired into the matter and he verified the marks from the tabulation register maintained in the University and came to know that the mark sheet was forged by the respondent. The joint enquiry report was submitted to Addl. Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. P.W.9 Rabi Narayan Nayak was the Senior Assistant, Examination Confidential-I of Utkal University, Vani Vihar and he stated about the seizure of tabulation registers of M.A. Oriya 1979 private and 1980 private by Vigilance Inspector. He further stated that after seizure of the tabulation registers, those were kept in his zima under zimanama Ext.18. P.W.10 Biranchi Narayan Behera was the Librarian of the College and he stated about the seizure of service book of the respondent under seizure list Ext.19. P.W.11 Mahendra Kumar Satpathy was the Senior Assistant, Examination Section, Utkal University who stated to have prepared the mark sheet Ext.13. He has further stated that his signature as well as the signatures of comparing clerk Md. Isak (P.W.12) and section officer Biswanath Padhi (P.W.15) were not appearing in the mark sheet Ext.14. P.W.12 Md. Isak was the Senior Assistant of Examination Section IV, Utkal University, Vani Vihar and he stated that Ext.14 has not been issued from Utkal University. He has further stated that his signature as well as the signatures of comparing clerk Md. Isak (P.W.12) and section officer Biswanath Padhi (P.W.15) were not appearing in the mark sheet Ext.14. P.W.12 Md. Isak was the Senior Assistant of Examination Section IV, Utkal University, Vani Vihar and he stated that Ext.14 has not been issued from Utkal University. P.W.13 Niranjan Mishra stated about the seizure of the tabulation registers of M.A. (Oriya) 1979 Private and M.A. (Oriya) 1980 Private by the Vigilance police. P.W.14 Naba Kishore Sahoo stated about the seizure of one application of Md. Isak, Senior Asst. under seizure list Ext.23 and taking of specimen handwriting of Md. Isak in six sheets. P.W.15 Biswanath Padhi was the Section Officer in Examination Section IV of Utkal University and he stated that the marks secured by the respondent in Paper-VII and Paper -VIII as per the tabulation register vide Ext.17 are 39 and 40 respectively but the same has been mentioned in Ext.14 as 59 and 52 respectively. He further stated about the sample handwritings of Mahendra Kumar Satpathy being taken in his presence so also that of Md. Isak. P.W.16 Khirod Chandra Patnaik was the Govt. Examiner of questioned documents who was attached to State Handwriting Bureau, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and after examining the questioned documents, he gave his opinion as per Ext.33 so also the statement of reasons as per Ext.34. P.W.17 Saroj Kumar Dandapat was the Junior Engineer, Rural works Department of Balikuda in the District of Jagatsinghpur and he stated about the collection of specimen handwritings of Ghanshyam Mishra (P.W.20). P.W.18 Nibaran Samal was the Inspector of Vigilance, Cuttack who is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.19 Gouri Sankar Prasad Mishra was the Dy. Director, N.C.C. in the Directorate of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar who conducted joint enquiry and stated about submission of report. P.W.20 Ghanasyam Mishra was the Administrative Officer, Examination, Utkal University who after verifying the mark sheet Ext.14 stated that the signature appearing as Administrative Officer in the mark sheet does not belong to him and it is a forged signature. He stated about the collection of his specimen signatures by the investigating officer. The prosecution exhibited thirty nine documents. P.W.20 Ghanasyam Mishra was the Administrative Officer, Examination, Utkal University who after verifying the mark sheet Ext.14 stated that the signature appearing as Administrative Officer in the mark sheet does not belong to him and it is a forged signature. He stated about the collection of his specimen signatures by the investigating officer. The prosecution exhibited thirty nine documents. Ext.1 is the appointment order of the respondent, Exts.2, 12, 19, 22, 23, 37, 38 and 39 are the seizure lists, Exts.3 and 18 are the zimanama, Ext.4 is the resolution, Ext.5 is the written F.I.R., Ext.6 to Ext.11 are the specimen signatures of the respondent, Ext.13 and 14 are the mark sheets, Ext.15/1 is the joint inquiry report, Ext.16 is the relevant entry in the tabulation register of M.A. Oriya Part-I examination and Ext.17 is the relevant entry in the tabulation register of M.A. Oriya Part-II Examination, Ext.20 is the original service book of the respondent, Exts. 21 to 21/5 are the specimen signatures, Exts. 24 to 29 are the specimen handwritings of Md. Isak, Exts.30 to 30/e are the specimen handwriting of M.K. Gochayat, Ext.31 to 31/a are the handwriting of M.K. Satpathy, Ext.32 is the handwriting of Md. Isak, Ext.33 is the opinion of the handwriting expert, Ext.35 is the forwarding report of S.P., Vigilance, CD, Cuttack, Ext.36 to 36/5 are the specimen signature of Ghanshyam Mishra (P.W.20). The material objects i.e. a packet containing negative of 29 snaps was marked as M.O.I and a bunch of 38 sheets of prints has been marked as M.O.II on behalf of the prosecution. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1. 5. The learned trial Court formulated three points for determination in the case. Those are as follows:- (i) Whether the accused had forged the marksheet of M.A. (Oriya) of the year 1980 of Utkal University with an intention to use the same for the purpose of cheating? (ii) Whether during his tenure as lecturer in Oriya in Kanpur Anchalika Mahavidyalaya from 30.3.1981 onwards, the accused had fraudulently used the mark sheet of M.A. Examination (Oriya) of the year 1980 of Utkal University as genuine which he knew at that time to be a forged document? (ii) Whether during his tenure as lecturer in Oriya in Kanpur Anchalika Mahavidyalaya from 30.3.1981 onwards, the accused had fraudulently used the mark sheet of M.A. Examination (Oriya) of the year 1980 of Utkal University as genuine which he knew at that time to be a forged document? (iii) Whether the accused had cheated the Selection Committee of the College by producing forged M.A. Oriya marksheet inducing them to deliver appointment letter in favour of the accused as a lecturer of the College with the benefit of monthly salary and other emoluments as per the U.G.C. scale?” 6. After analyzing the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold that nowhere in the F.I.R. submitted by the D.S.P., Vigilance vide Ext.5, it is mentioned that the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of lecturer was 54% of marks in M.A. Degree and that prompted the respondent to produce a forged mark sheet showing 54% marks in aggregate for the post of lecturer in Oriya. It is further held that the investigating agency has not produced a single scrap of paper nor the prosecution has made any reasonable attempt to prove that there was minimum eligibility criteria for the post i.e. an M.A. pass with 54% in aggregate save and except the statement of P.W.1. The learned trial Court further held that there is no criminal intention or motive ascribable to the respondent to say that by showing his enhanced mark sheet, he could only get the job of a lecturer and not otherwise. The learned trial Court has further held that the tabulation registers were kept in the confidential section as well as in the Examination Section IV. The mark sheets were prepared from the tabulation register maintained in Examination Section IV but no reasonable attempt has been made by the Investigating Officer of the case to seize the tabulation register maintained in Examination Section IV which seems to be an irreconcilable discrepancy marked in the prosecution case. The learned trial Court further held that Ext.14 has not been copied from the tabulation register Ext.17 and the authenticity of tabulation register is seriously doubtful as the seal and signature of the authorities as well as the University did not appear in it and the register was also not page marked or certified. The learned trial Court further held that Ext.14 has not been copied from the tabulation register Ext.17 and the authenticity of tabulation register is seriously doubtful as the seal and signature of the authorities as well as the University did not appear in it and the register was also not page marked or certified. It was further held that the handwriting expert report Ext.33 indicates that the mark sheet Ext.14 is not in the handwriting of the respondent. It was further held that the respondent had no knowledge regarding the genuineness or falsehood of the document when he produced the same before the Selection Committee for the post of lecturer in Oriya and that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent had forged the mark-sheet Ext.14 and that he had knowledge and he used the same for his wrongful gain. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent emphatically contended that when the tabulation register of the confidential section has been proved and the marks obtained in M.A. Part-II examination in Papers VII and VIII as per tabulation register do not tally with the mark sheet of the petitioner marked as Ext.14 which was used by the petitioner for getting the service as a lecturer in the College, the learned trial Court erred in giving benefit of doubt to the respondent. It is further contended that the mark sheet Ext.14 contains the signature of the Administrative Officer, Examination of Utkal University and the Administrative Officer having been examined as P.W.20 has stated that the signature appearing in Ext.14 does not belong to him and it is a forged signature which clearly fulfills the ingredients of the offences. The learned counsel further contended that merely because the tabulation register from Examination Section IV which is the issue section has not been seized or proved in the case, the same should not have been a factor for acquittal of the respondent. It is further contended that the handwriting experts’ opinion which has been marked as Ext.33 also substantially proves the case of forgery as put forth by the prosecution. It is further contended that the handwriting experts’ opinion which has been marked as Ext.33 also substantially proves the case of forgery as put forth by the prosecution. The learned counsel further contended that since the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on misappreciation of evidence on record and non-consideration of material evidence, this Court as a Court of first appeal has got enough power to review and reconsider the entire evidence and reverse the order of acquittal. In support of such contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in case Hareram Satpathy and anr. -Vrs.-Premlal Suna & others reported in 2015 (II) Indian Law Reports (Cuttack) 864. Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that merely because another view is possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. It is further contended that the findings of the learned trial Court cannot said to be perverse or based on no evidence at all. He further contended that the occurrence in question is of the year 1981 and the order of acquittal was passed in the year 2004 and in the meantime, the respondent has already retired from his services and he is aged more than 60 years and therefore, if at this stage the order of acquittal is interfered with, it would cause serious miscarriage of justice and therefore, the GCRLA should be dismissed. 8. It is true as held in the case of Hareram Satpathy (supra) that there can be no limitation as an appellate Court to review the entire evidence upon which the order of acquittal has been passed and to come to its own independent conclusion both on facts as well as law and the principle has been well enunciated in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Main Pal and Anr.-Vrs.-State of Haryana and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2158, Basappa -Vrs.-State of Karntaka reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 497, Chandrappa and Ors -Vrs.-State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 325, but it is equally well settled that in case of appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. (Ref:-A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 308, Babu -Vrs.-State of Uttar Pradesh) 9. Out of the two mark sheets which have been proved by the prosecution and marked as Ext.13 and Ext.14 which relates to the marks awarded to the respondent in M.A. Oriya Private Examination, there are no discrepancies relating to the marks obtained by the respondent as per the mark sheet Ext.13 vis-a-vis the tabulation register of the Confidential Section which was produced by the prosecution. So far as the mark sheet Ext.14 is concerned, it indicates the total marks of the respondent in Part-I as well as separate marks obtained in Part-II i.e. in papers-V, VI, VII and VIII. So far as papers V and VI are concerned, the marks as per Ext.14 tally with the tabulation register of the confidential section, however, so far as paper-VII and paper-VIII are concerned, it is the prosecution case that the tabulation register of confidential section indicates that in paper-VII, the respondent had secured 39 marks whereas the mark sheet Ext.14 indicates that he has secured 59 marks. Similarly in paper-VIII, though the tabulation register indicates that the respondent had secured 40 marks but the mark sheet as per Ext.14 indicates it to be 52 marks and therefore, in paper-VII, the excess mark shown to have been awarded is 20 marks and in paper-VIII, the excess mark awarded is 12 marks. The prosecution has proved the two tabulation registers which as per seizure list Ext.22 were seized from the confidential section of Utkal university, Vani Vihar on 22.7.93 and those are of M.A. Oriya 1979 (Private) and M.A. Oriya 1980 (Private). The corresponding entries of tabulation register seized under Ext.22 have been marked as Ext.16 and Ext.17 which have been proved by P.W.9 Rabi Narayan Nayak. In the cross-examination, he has stated that in those two tabulation registers, there is no signature of the authority of Utkal University showing that those two registers are tabulation registers and no page certificate has been given in those tabulation registers. He further stated that two different persons or employees of Utkal University used to write the tabulation registers which were available in Examination Section IV as well as in the Confidential Section (E.C.I). He further stated that he had no knowledge if the tabulation registers similar to Exts.17 and 18 were available in the Examination Section IV. The enquiry officer P.W.8 Dr. Prafulla Kumar Mishra though stated that he verified the marks from the tabulation register maintained in the University and came to know that the mark sheet has been forged by the respondent but he admits that there is no endorsement given by him in the tabulation register that he verified the tabulation register in presence of the Controller and he had not obtained any document in writing from the Controller that in his presence, he verified the tabulation register. He admits that in the enquiry report, nowhere he had mentioned that he had been to Utkal University and verified the tabulation register to ascertain the allegation of forgery made by the respondent. P.W.11 Mahendra Kumar Satapathy has stated that in Examination Section IV, tabulation register remains and during the relevant period, besides him, there were other Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants in the Examination Section to issue marksheets to the concerned candidates. P.W.11 Mahendra Kumar Satapathy has stated that in Examination Section IV, tabulation register remains and during the relevant period, besides him, there were other Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants in the Examination Section to issue marksheets to the concerned candidates. After verifying Ext.14, he stated that it might be the handwriting of some other persons belonged to his Section which he cannot tell and he has further stated that Ext.14 has been issued from the Examination Section which runs contrary to his evidence in chief that Ext.14 has not been issued to the candidate concerned from the University. P.W.12 Md Isak has stated that for about seven to eight years, he was working as Comparing Clerk but he could not remember who was his colleague during the said period. He fairly admitted that he was never appointed as Comparing Clerk in Examination Section IV. He further stated that basing on the instruction of the Superior Officers, anybody can be the Comparing Clerk and the said procedure was followed during his time and sometime more employees were appointed to prepare mark-sheets in case of heavy applications of the candidates for the mark-sheets. He further stated that he had never issued any mark-sheet to any candidate and therefore, he cannot tell which mark sheet had been issued or which had not been issued. He further stated that the tabulation register relating to Examination Section IV was not available in the case record. P.W.15 Biswanath Padhi who was the Section Officer of Examination Section IV has stated that Ext.17 does not belong to Examination Section IV and there is no official seal either on the front or on the back page of the tabulation register nor there is any certificate to show that the register containing Ext.17 is the tabulation register of Utkal University. P.W.18 Nibaran Samal has stated that the Examination Section IV of Utkal University used to issue mark sheet. P.W.20 Ghanasyam Mishra who was the Administrative Officer, Examination of Utkal University has stated that the tabulation registers are kept in confidential section as well as in issue section which is Examination Section IV and he has not produced the tabulation register before police and the mark sheets are prepared from the tabulation register maintained in the Examination Section IV. 10. 10. Thus on a careful analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is very clear that the tabulation registers are kept not only in Confidential Section but also in the Examination Section IV and the mark sheet which are issued to the candidates are from the tabulation register which is maintained in Examination Section IV. Therefore, mere production of the tabulation registers which were seized from Confidential Section as per seizure list Ext.22 and marked as Exts.16 and 17 is no way helpful to the prosecution. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer not only to seize the tabulation register of Examination Section IV but also it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the same during trial in accordance with law. The learned trial Court is quite justified in giving due weight to the non-seizure and non-production of the tabulation register from Examination Section IV. Had the tabulation register from Examination Section IV been produced before the learned trial Court, the relevant entries so far as the marks shown to have been obtained in paper VII and paper VIII by the respondent in M.A. Oriya (Private) examination could have been verified vis-a-vis the marks noted in Ext.14. The possibility of a clerical error while noting down the marks in the tabulation register in Examination Section IV cannot be ruled out. Non-seizure and non-production of such a vital document rather creates an impression that perhaps the marks awarded in paper VII and Paper VIII as per Ext.14 were tallying with the corresponding entries in the tabulation register available in Examination Section IV for which it was deliberately not seized nor produced. It has come on record that in the case of exigencies, number of staff are engaged for the preparation of the certificates in Examination Section IV and nobody is appointed as a Comparing Clerk for issuance of mark sheet. P.W.20 has stated that he did not compare the mark sheet with the tabulation register. Therefore, if a mark sheet is issued from Examination Section IV carrying wrong marks in some papers due to clerical error, a student cannot be held responsible for the said error and it cannot be said that the student has committed any forgery. P.W.20 has stated that he did not compare the mark sheet with the tabulation register. Therefore, if a mark sheet is issued from Examination Section IV carrying wrong marks in some papers due to clerical error, a student cannot be held responsible for the said error and it cannot be said that the student has committed any forgery. Unless and until it is proved that no such certificate has been issued by the Examination Section IV to the concerned student, a prosecution for forgery or cheating would not be attracted. Ext.14 has been prepared on the mark sheet paper of Utkal University and there are number of entries in Ext.14 including the name of the student, the year of passing, the roll number, the total marks awarded in part-I examination and marks awarded in different papers of Part II examination. The prosecution is not disputing the marks which are awarded in Part-I examination so also the marks which has been secured by the respondent as per the mark sheet in Paper-V and Paper-VI. The only dispute is with regard to the marks awarded in Paper-VII and Paper-VIII of Part II examination. Three signatures are appearing on the bottom of Ext.14. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that who were the staff of Examination Section IV appointed on the date on which Ext.14 has been shown to have been issued as well as to prove that the entries which are there in Ext.14 are not in the handwritings or the signatures of any staff who were working on that particular day in Examination Section IV. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed in that respect not only by not bringing on record the tabulation register of Examination Section IV but also by adducing clinching evidence that nobody in the Examination Section IV working on 31.03.1981 has either written or signed Ext.14. Even though the Administrative Officer who has been examined as P.W.20 has denied his signature appearing on Ext.14 and stated that it is a forged signature and the handwriting expert has also given his opinion in that respect but law is well settled that the report of a handwriting expert is not the conclusive proof. It is after all opinion evidence and the opinion has to be supported by reasons. It is after all opinion evidence and the opinion has to be supported by reasons. The Court has to evaluate the same like any other evidence. The Court is not bound to accept the opinion of the expert always and it is to be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. The opinion evidence, is by its very nature is weak and infirm and cannot itself form the basis for a conviction. The expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take place of substantive evidence. (Ref:- 1977 Criminal Law Journal 2013, The Public Prosecutor -Vrs.-P.P. Reddy; 1983 Criminal Law Journal 133, The State -Vrs.-Kanhu Charan Barik; 1993 (1) Crimes 1150, Umakant Bajpayee -Vrs.-State of U.P.; AIR 1960 Mysore 220, Nagappa -Vrs.-Nannibu). 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are not possible or it is unreasonable. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has not ignored any material evidence on record and after assessing it carefully, he has reached at the conclusion and given benefit of doubt to the respondent. Therefore, it would not be proper to disturb the finding of fact by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the GCRLA being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.