ORDER : The revision petition on hand is directed against judgment dated 25.06.2014 of Additional Sessions Judge IV, Kottayam (for short 'the appellate court') dismissing the Crl.Appeal and confirming the judgment passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom (for short the 'trial court') on 25.07.2011 in C.C No.623/2006. The revision petitioner, who is accused No.1 was found guilty by the trial court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 474 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each, on default of payment of fine. The fine amount, when remitted was directed to be paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the rest of the offences charged against them and were directed to be set at liberty after cancellation of bail bonds executed by each of them. Accused No.1 was acquitted for the offence under Section 423 IPC. Criminal Appeal preferred by Accused No.1 was dismissed and thereby his conviction by the trial court was confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, Accused No.1 (Appellant No.1) has approached this Court in the revision on hand, seeking to reverse the judgments of the appellate court as well as the trial court. 2. Before going into the merits of the allegations raised by the revision petitioner, it is relevant to have an idea about the prosecution case. A private complaint was moved by the defacto complainant, one Mrs. Leela. N before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom alleging that an agreement for sale was executed among herself and accused No.1 on 22.01.1999 agreeing to purchase a tiled building bearing No.VII/16 of Vaikom Municipality for a total consideration of Rs.75,000/-, payable within one year. Based on the agreement, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid by the 1st accused to the lady as advance consideration and the balance amount was agreed to be paid on or before 22.01.2000. At the time of execution of the agreement, it was also agreed orally among the parties that Rs.15,000/-will also be paid within a month. Based on the agreement, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid by the 1st accused to the lady as advance consideration and the balance amount was agreed to be paid on or before 22.01.2000. At the time of execution of the agreement, it was also agreed orally among the parties that Rs.15,000/-will also be paid within a month. Thereafter on 18.03.1999, accused No.1 has paid Rs.15,000/- to Mrs.Leela N at her residence and an endorsement to the effect was obtained overleaf the agreement from her husband and each of them had put their signatures thereunder. Thereafter, though the defacto complainant was ready and willing to execute the sale deed, accused No.1 was reluctant to do so. Even though execution of sale deed was demanded by the defacto complainant repeatedly from accused No.1, the latter was not ready to pay the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. Thereafter, a lawyer notice was sent by accused No.1 to the defacto complainant on 17.11.2004. It was stated in the notice that Rs.15,000/- and 20,000/- had been paid to the defacto complainant respectively on 18.03.2000 and 20.03.2002 and the duration of the agreement was extended till 01.12.2002. Since the defacto complainant was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed, return of the amount already received by her alongwith interest was demanded through the notice. The defacto complainant had sent a reply notice denying the recitals in the notice in full. Thereafter accused No.1 has filed a suit before Munsiff Court, Vaikom as O.S No.7/2005, seeking for return of Rs.54,942/-on 06.01.2005. The copy of the agreement for sale was produced before the court. It was contended in the suit by the defacto complainant that in the endorsement made on the reverse side of the agreement, the date 18.03.1999 written originally was found corrected as 18.03.2000. According to the defacto complainant the said correction was made in the agreement without her knowledge or consent. On the reverse side of Ext.P2 agreement, it was found written: 3. Below the extract, signature was also found affixed under the name written as 'N. OTHERT LANGUAGE'. According to the defacto complainant, the endorsement was not made by her and Rs.20,000/-referred to therein was not received by her. According to her, neither the name was written by her nor the signature was affixed by her under the endorsement. Below the extract, signature was also found affixed under the name written as 'N. OTHERT LANGUAGE'. According to the defacto complainant, the endorsement was not made by her and Rs.20,000/-referred to therein was not received by her. According to her, neither the name was written by her nor the signature was affixed by her under the endorsement. The endorsement was also found attested by one Mr.A Unni and Mr.K.P.Ratheesan. According to the defacto complainant the signatures were affixed by those persons neither in her presence nor with her knowledge. Therefore, a complaint was preferred by her raising the above said facts. It was contended therein that all the accused have done so in furtherance of their common intention to cheat her and solely to gain unlawful enrichment therefrom. It is further alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid acts of the accused are punishable under Sections 423, 468 and 474 IPC and all accused are liable to be sentenced with the punishment provided for the said offences under each of the provisions. The defacto complainant sought for referring the said complaint to the Vaikom Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of the crime and conduct of investigation. The trial court, had forwarded the complaint to the Vaikom Police Station, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Vaikom Police has registered FIR No.650/2005 on receipt of the complaint on 13.10.2005 incorporating offences punishable under Sections 423, 468 and 474 r/w Section 34 IPC. The aforesaid crime was investigated by the Vaikom Police and a final report was laid before the trial court chargesheeting the accused for all the offences allegedly committed by him. The final report was laid before the trial court on 29.09.2006. 4. The trial court took the final report on file and issued process against all the three accused. On appearance of them before the court, charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 423, 468 and 474 r/w Section 34 IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to each of the accused, they pleaded not guilty and faced trial. 5. The prosecution has adduced oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and documentary evidence consisting of Exts. P1 to P17 and Ext.C1. When the charge was read over and explained to each of the accused, they pleaded not guilty and faced trial. 5. The prosecution has adduced oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and documentary evidence consisting of Exts. P1 to P17 and Ext.C1. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, each of the accused were questioned with reference to the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Each of them denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. Grounds having not been made out to record an order of acquittal, they were directed to enter on their defence. On the side of the defence, two documents were marked in evidence as Exts.D1 and D2. After closing the trial, the trial court appreciated the evidence and appraised the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the Counsel for the defence and arrived at a finding of guilt against accused No.1 alone for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 474 IPC. Accused No.1 was acquitted for the offence under Section 423 IPC. The other accused were acquitted for all the offences. Being aggrieved by the finding of guilt, order of conviction for the offences under Sections 468 & 474 IPC and the sentence imposed, accused No.1 had filed Crl.Appeal No.326/2011 before the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam. The appellate court to which the appeal was made over, heard the appeal and dismissed it. In the said circumstances, accused No.1 has preferred the revision on hand challenging the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.326/2011. 6. According to Sri. Julian Xavier J, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, both the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in the case, in its proper perspective. According to him, Ext.C1 was not proved by the prosecution by examining the expert who had reported the disputed signature as forged and therefore, it ought not to have been relied on by the trial court. According to him, the dictum in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharasthra [ (2006) 10 SCC 681 ] relied on by the trial court has no application to the factual matrix of the case on hand. According to him, the dictum in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharasthra [ (2006) 10 SCC 681 ] relied on by the trial court has no application to the factual matrix of the case on hand. The accused was also not questioned in the true spirit of Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Based on the contentions raised as above, the concurrent findings of the courts below on guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 468 and 474 IPC and passing of orders of conviction and sentence following that, are sought to be reversed. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the judgment under challenge is only to be confirmed for the reason that there was true and proper appreciation of evidence on record by courts below. 8. In the backdrop of the arguments advanced by the respective counsel, it is incumbent on this Court to see whether the evidence on record was appreciated in the wrong perspective for arriving at a finding of guilt of accused No.1. 9. The evidence adduced by the prosecution include the oral evidence tendered by PWs 1 to 4 and the documentary evidence, which incorporate Exts.P1 to P17 and Ext.C1. The evidence of the defence include Exts.D1 and D2. PW1 is none other than the defacto complainant, PW2 is the husband of PW1 and PW3 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation in Crime No. 650/2005 and laid the final report in the case on hand. PW4 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the crime based on the private complaint filed before the trial court and forwarded to him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. PW1 has categorically stated in the box strictly in accordance with what have been stated by her in Ext.P1 complaint. PW2, her husband had also deposed in tune with the version of PW1. PW3 and PW4 are police officers of Vaikom Police Station and their evidence is totally related to the registration of crime, investigation of the case and laying of final report charge-sheeting the accused. The evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 being crucial in the matter of establishing the forgery alleged, those are put to strict scrutiny. Undoubtedly, both witnesses have deposed in tune with the pleadings of PW1 in the private complaint, which is marked in evidence as Ext.P1. The evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 being crucial in the matter of establishing the forgery alleged, those are put to strict scrutiny. Undoubtedly, both witnesses have deposed in tune with the pleadings of PW1 in the private complaint, which is marked in evidence as Ext.P1. The definite case of PW1 while seeking to prosecute the accused for the offences under Sections 468 and 474 IPC are incorporated in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Ext.P1 which are extracted hereunder for easy reference: 10. The specific allegations of PW1 in paragraph 7 extracted above are that the respondents three in numbers jointly forged Ext.P2(b) and making use of that document a suit was filed before the Munsiff Court for realisation of money from the defacto complainant. Therefore, the allegation of PW1 was that all the accused together committed the offence of forgery alleged by her and the document forged was used for the purpose of cheating by producing it in evidence in a suit for realisation of money. Ext.P2(b) is the endorsement with the disputed signature affixed beneath that. The signature was sent for expert opinion alongwith Ext.P15, P15(a), P16 and P16(a) documents which contain the admitted signatures for comparison and to arrive at an opinion about the authorship of those. The specimen signatures of PW1 was taken by PW3 and those had also been sent to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram alongwith the documents referred to above. A report was obtained from the Laboratory after examination and it is marked in evidence as Ext.C1. 11. It is reported by the Assistant Director (Documents) Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram that on comparison, the disputed signature was found distinct from the standard signatures in general and it has individual writing characteristics. It is stated that they differ in general writing characteristics such as movement, skill, speed, rhythm etc. It has been concluded by the Assistant Director after holding a thorough analysis by examining under zoom Sterio Microscope that the questioned signature shows signs suggestive of forgery such as overall slow, drawn nature, defective line quality, overwriting, corrections, pen lifts/pen pauses at unusual places, added strokes, etc. Accordingly it was reported that the difference between the questioned and the standard signatures are significant and the differences are beyond the range of natural variations and not due to any indented disguise but are only due to different authorship. Accordingly it was reported that the difference between the questioned and the standard signatures are significant and the differences are beyond the range of natural variations and not due to any indented disguise but are only due to different authorship. It was concluded finally that on a cumulative consideration of differences in handwriting characteristics coupled with signs of forgery, led to the conclusion. Therefore, it is evident from Ext.C1 that the disputed signature was not affixed by PW1, the defacto complainant. Therefore, it can be discerned on the basis of the findings in Ext.C1 that the signature underneath Ext.P2(b) was not affixed by PW1 but by someone else. It is not discerned in the context that the disputed signature was affixed by anyone of the accused, three in numbers. The prosecution case as per Ext.P1 was that all the three accused jointly committed the offence of forgery. Trial was held in the case before the trial court and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt alleged against them. 12. The Trial court reached at a conclusion on the basis of the evidence discussed above that the disputed signature was affixed by accused No.1, the revision petitioner herein. The appellate court does not find a reason to deviate from the finding of the trial court and thus concurred with the same. The circumstances relied on by the trial court while finding the accused guilty were dealt with in paragraph 16 of its judgment dated 25.07.2011. The trial court has found that Ext.P2 was originally possessed by accused No.1 but lateron was produced before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom in the suit preferred therein as O.S No.7/2005 for return of money based on Ext.P2 agreement. Therefore, the trial court held that accused No.1 himself is guilty for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Thus the court convicted and sentenced him under Sections 468 and 474 IPC. Direct evidence was lacking in the case. Therefore, the prosecution was constrained to look into the circumstantial evidence to see whether the finding of guilt against the accused will sustain or not, that too beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the court convicted and sentenced him under Sections 468 and 474 IPC. Direct evidence was lacking in the case. Therefore, the prosecution was constrained to look into the circumstantial evidence to see whether the finding of guilt against the accused will sustain or not, that too beyond reasonable doubt. As already stated, the allegation of prosecution was that all the accused jointly committed the offence of forgery and the 1st accused caused the production of the forged document in a suit filed by him seeking realisation of money before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The prosecution itself was not precise while making allegations in the chargesheet about the person who had forged the signature of PW1 in Ext.P2 (b). It is not discernible from the allegations in Ext.P1 that the endorsement overleaf Ext.P2(b) agreement was made by accused No.1 and signature of PW1 was affixed by him thereunder. On the contrary, allegation was to the effect that signature in Ext.P2 (b) was authored by all the three accused jointly. The endorsement was not sent for obtaining opinion of expert about its authorship. What is plausible to be discerned from the version of PW1 was that the person who had written overleaf Ext.P2(b) and affixed signature thereunder was not the defacto complainant but by someone else. When culpability is raised against all the three accused, in the absence of any cogent evidence driving home the conclusion that accused No.1 has authored the endorsement overleaf Ext.P2(b) and affixed signature thereunder, criminal liability for commission of the offence of forgery cannot be fastened on him. Therefore, the prosecution has thoroughly failed to bring on record evidence liable to subscribe the only and only finding that accused No.1 had authored the endorsement and affixed the signature thereunder and thus committed the offence of forgery. Since the offence of forgery is not proved by the prosecution as against accused No.1, the prosecution cannot also claims to have proved that accused No.1 is guilty of the offence under Section 468 IPC alleged against him. Therefore, the finding of the courts below that accused No.1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and the conviction and sentence based on that also will not sustain. In the absence of evidence driving home guilt only against accused No.1, the courts below ought not to have arrived at finding of guilt against him for the offences. In the absence of evidence driving home guilt only against accused No.1, the courts below ought not to have arrived at finding of guilt against him for the offences. No enquiry particularly to find out the actual person who had authored the endorsement in Ext.P2 as Ext.P2(b) and affixed signature thereunder was caused to be held either by the trial court or by the appellate court. The enquiry held by the court culminated in Ext.C1 stating that the disputed endorsement and the signature were not authored by PW1. Therefore, Ext.C1 cannot be taken as a cogent material to be relied upon to hold that the writings and signature were authored by any of the three accused or by three of them together. The trial court has not relied on Ext.C1 to find accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of the offence of forgery and it is totally justified in doing so. Accused No.1 who stands in the same pedestal as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of allegations levelled by the prosecution, alone was found guilty on the basis of Ext.C1 and therefore the court undoubtedly has gone wrong. 13. The dictum in Abdul Rasheed & Ors V. State [ 2002(2) KLJ 753 ] relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fortifies his argument as above. The law on the point is well settled in Paragraph 13 of the judgment supra and is extracted hereunder : “13. It appears that the learned Special Judge fastened criminal liability on the accused mainly on the ground that PW1 is not the author of the signature in Ext.P4. The court below has wrongly dealt more on the improbability of the defence rather than weighting the prosecution evidence in the light of the principles of appreciation of evidence. Much reliance is seen placed on the evidence of the handwriting expert to hold that the signature in Ext.P1 is not that of P.W.1. No doubt, if the evidence of P.W.9 and Ext.P22 are accepted, it has to be held that P.W.1 is not the author of the signature in Ext.P4. P.W.9 is the Assistant Director of Document, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. The disputed signature found in Ext.P4 was sent to the expert for comparison with eight specimen signatures of P.W.1 contained in Exts.P5 and P5(a). Ext.P15 is the first report of PW9. P.W.9 is the Assistant Director of Document, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. The disputed signature found in Ext.P4 was sent to the expert for comparison with eight specimen signatures of P.W.1 contained in Exts.P5 and P5(a). Ext.P15 is the first report of PW9. It is stated in Ext.P15 that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard signatures stamped and marked S1 to S8(in Exts.P5 and P5(a)) probably did not write the red enclosed questioned signature(in Ext.P4). In Ext.P15 there is no conclusive finding to the effect that the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures have no similarity. It is seen that subsequently the standard signatures of PW1 of the year 1992 were also sent for comparison. The ten standard signatures of PW1 found in Ext.P1(b), P1(d), P1(e),P1(f),P1(g),P1(a), P6 and P2 were also sent to the expert for comparison and Ext.P22 report was obtained. The evidence was given by PW1 regarding the similarities occurring in the disputed signature from the standard signature with the help of the magnifier. On a consideration of the evidence, the lower court found that the signature in Ext.P4 is the result of forgery. According to me, even if it is assumed that the signature in Ext.P4 is not that of PW1, the accused cannot be held liable unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that any one of the accused in the case is the author of the signature in Ext.P4. It is not just and proper to convict the accused mainly relying on the evidence of an expert. The Supreme Court in Ram Chandra V. State of U.P. ( AIR 1957 SC 381 ) held that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items or internal and external evidence. In Ishwari Prasad V.Md Isa. ( AIR 1963 SC 1728 ) the Supreme Court held that the expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive. This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar V. Sudodh Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 529 ) where it was pointed out that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. The Supreme Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion with regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin V.State of M.P.( AIR 1967 SC 1326 ). The Supreme Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion with regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin V.State of M.P.( AIR 1967 SC 1326 ). It was pointed out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence direct or circumstantial. Again in Magan Bihari Lal.V State of Punjab ( AIR 1977 SC 1091 ), the Supreme Court held that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. Thus it is well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution. As already stated the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that any of the accused had signed Ext.P4 bill. “' 14. In the case on hand, on the basis of Ext.C1 the prosecution has successfully established that PW1 was not the author of the disputed writings or signature in Ext.P2. But, it will not be sufficient proof to establish that accused No.1 has forged the handwritings and signature of PW1 in Ext.P2. The prosecution itself does not have a definite idea as to who actually has forged the handwriting and signature of PW1. Moreover, handwriting and signature cannot be forged at a time by more than one accused. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution in the case against the accused itself is defective. 15. Opinion of expert in Ext.C1 to the effect that the signature was not affixed by PW1 is insufficient to hold that, all the accused jointly or any of them independently has forged the handwriting or signature of PW1 in Ext.P2 and therefore guilty of the offence. 16. The trial court has relied totally on Ext.C1 to arrive at a finding of guilt against accused No.1. Ext.C1 is only an opinion obtained from an expert on forwarding the signatures admitted as well as disputed by PW1. The opinion sought was whether the disputed signature in Ext.P2(b) was put by Pw1 or not. Opinion obtained from expert through Ext.C1 was that the disputed signature was not that of PW1. Therefore what could be drawn on the basis of Ext.C1 was that someone had forged the signature of PW1. The opinion sought was whether the disputed signature in Ext.P2(b) was put by Pw1 or not. Opinion obtained from expert through Ext.C1 was that the disputed signature was not that of PW1. Therefore what could be drawn on the basis of Ext.C1 was that someone had forged the signature of PW1. But, it is insufficient to hold that the signature of PW1 was forged by any of the accused. The trial court has found accordingly in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and acquitted them. Accused No.1 is also entitled for a similar finding. But the trial court has found guilt against accused No.1 and convicted and sentenced him for the offences under Sections 468 and 474 IPC. The appellate court has also gone wrong while confirming the judgment of the trial court. The concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below suffer for the erroneous view taken against accused No.1. 17. It is pertinent to note that the trial court in the case on hand has relied solely on Ext.C1, the opinion evidence for arriving of a finding of guilt of accused No.1. The trial curt undoubtedly has erred in doing so ignoring the well settled position that opinion evidence itself will not form basis of conviction as it is not conclusive evidence. 18. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that Ext.C1 was received in evidence and relied on by the prosecution without examining the authority who has issued it, will not sustain for the reason that under Section 293 Cr.P.C, a report of an expert is liable to be received in evidence without the author of the same being examined before a court of law. The Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory being an Officer authorised under Section 293 Cr.P.C., the trial court cannot be found fault with in receiving Ext.C1 report in evidence without the author of the same being examined before it. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner on that ground is only to be repelled. 19. On the basis of the foregoing discussions, it can safely be held that the finding of guilt against accused No.1 was totally without any basis and is only the outcome of appreciation of evidence in the wrong perspective. Therefore, this Court is perfectly justified in interfering with the same. Accordingly, this court do so. 19. On the basis of the foregoing discussions, it can safely be held that the finding of guilt against accused No.1 was totally without any basis and is only the outcome of appreciation of evidence in the wrong perspective. Therefore, this Court is perfectly justified in interfering with the same. Accordingly, this court do so. In the result, the revision stands allowed. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections 468 and 474 IPC, the order of conviction and sentence as per judgment dated 25.07.2011 in C.C No.623/2006 of trial court confirmed in judgment dated 25.06.2014 of the appellate court in Crl.Appeal No.326/2011 is set aside. The accused shall be set at liberty on cancellation of the bail bond executed by him.