JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption) Jammu whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under each of the above four Sections. Period of imprisonment in all the offences has been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The impugned judgment dated 16.02.2006 has been challenged by the appellant on the following grounds:- That the impugned judgment is against the facts of the case and the accepted principles of law. That the prosecution had alleged the tampering of the flight coupon (EXPW-JP/l) by way of forgery against the appellant herein in the challan. It was alleged that on 19.11.1997, the appellant was operating the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport when he committed the said criminal act. In order to prove this allegation, the prosecution had placed on record the log book of the Jammu Airport allegedly containing the duty schedule of the various employees including the appellant. The said log book was in the shape of a carbon copy only. The contention of the defense is that the said carbon copy is not an admissible piece of evidence particularly when the 1.O. had made no effort to seize the original log book and had not cited Sh. S.Z. Ali, the scribe thereof, as a witness in the case, has been accepted by the learned Trial Court and no reliance has been placed on the said carbon copy of the log book. Similarly, the learned Trial Court has also refused to accept the carbon copy of pay-in-slip as evidence to prove the duty of the appellant at ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on19.11.1997 observing that the same has not been even shown in the court to PW- Ashok Kumar Koul or for that matter to any other witness. Similarly, the learned Trial Court has also refused to accept the carbon copy of pay-in-slip as evidence to prove the duty of the appellant at ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on19.11.1997 observing that the same has not been even shown in the court to PW- Ashok Kumar Koul or for that matter to any other witness. Therefore, though the leaned Trial Court did not place any reliance on these two documents for the purpose of proving the duty of the appellant at the ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on19.11.199, yet he adopted a novel approach of the appreciation of evidence and held the appellant guilty of the offences mentioned above. Even in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant was not put any question regarding his duty at the ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport on 19.11.1997. That the learned trial Court has further committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW-J.P. Jaiswar for the purpose of identification of the handwriting/signatures of the appellant on the audit coupon (EXPW-JP) and the flight coupon ((EXPW-JP/1) and holding that the appellant had prepared both these coupons. That the learned Trial Count has wrongly held that the appellant has not challenged the said witnesses, i.e., PW J.P. Jaiswar and PW-Kewal Krishan in their cross- examinations with respect to their acquaintance character. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof in a criminal ease always lies on the prosecution unless a statute prescribes otherwise. But in the present case, the learned Trial Court has opined at page 7 of the judgment that the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused. In the present case, when these prosecution witnesses had not deposed anything regarding one or the other of the manners prescribed under Section 47 of the Evidence Act in which they were claiming to be acquainted with the signature/handwriting of the appellant, there was absolutely no necessity or requirement under law for the appellant to put any question to the effect to those witnesses. Otherwise also, if the cross-examination of these prosecution witnesses are read in between the lines, it will be found that they have been sufficiently cross-examined on this aspect as a matter of fact. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is bad on this score as well. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. Otherwise also, if the cross-examination of these prosecution witnesses are read in between the lines, it will be found that they have been sufficiently cross-examined on this aspect as a matter of fact. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is bad on this score as well. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. Counsel for appellant has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of appeal, whereas counsel for respondent has supported the judgment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/accused, Surinder Dogra, was posted as Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Jammu at relevant time. The case of prosecution is that on 19.11.1997, the accused, while manning the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport, prepared an infant ticket in a fictitious name and tampered by way of forgery its flight coupon to make it an adult ticket, thereby obtaining pecuniary advantage for him and causing loss to Airlines. Accordingly CBI case, RC 3(A)/98-Jammu dated 08.01.1998 was registered and investigation taken up on a complaint dated 27.12.1997 lodged by Sh. Romesh Malhotra, Manager (Vigilance) Indian Airlines. The allegation to be investigated was that M/s Blue Bird Tours & Travel in connivance with Sh. Rattan Chand and some unknown officials of Indian Airlines, Jammu were able to procure infant tickets from Indian Airlines office, which were tampered from infant tickets to adult tickets, from shorter distance to longer distance, from infant fare to adult fare and had sold them to S/Sh. K.K. Gupta and R.K. Kohli, officials of J&K Bank, Jammu. During the course of investigation of this case, Vigilance Deptt. of the Indian Airlines Delhi sent a flight coupon bearing No.0853549 in favour of Mr. Vikram for sector Jammu to Delhi who had traveled on 19.11.97 but when the auditor coupon of this ticket number was checked up it was found that the auditor coupon was in favour of master Azim (infant) and the sector was Jammu to Srinagar on it. Investigation revealed that accused, Surinder Dogra, was manning the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport and his duty was to prepare and sell the Indian Airlines tickets to the passengers. On 19.11.97 he prepared an infant ticket No.0581/0853549 in a fictitious name, called Master Azim, for Jammu-Srinagar Sector Incorporating therein-false conjuction ticket No.4362009 and also deposited Rs.102 with the Cashier vide pay-in-slip dated 19.11.97. On 19.11.97 he prepared an infant ticket No.0581/0853549 in a fictitious name, called Master Azim, for Jammu-Srinagar Sector Incorporating therein-false conjuction ticket No.4362009 and also deposited Rs.102 with the Cashier vide pay-in-slip dated 19.11.97. Subsequently, he tampered the flight coupon of the same ticket by way of forgery and made it an adult ticket in the name of one Mr Vikram. Also changing the sector as Jammu-Delhi and fare to Rs.3105. The accused, thus, enabled Mr. Vikram to travel to Delhi on this forged ticket by flight No. 422 dated 19.11.97, seat No. 14. The accused by his act, it is alleged, abused his official position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary loss of Rs.3003 to the department. 5. After producing charge sheet, accused denied allegations when charges were put to him and prosecution was directed to produce evidence. During course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses namely Ashok Koul, Kewal Krishan, Romesh Malhotra, J. Chanderera Hassan, J.P. Jaiswar, Anil Kumar, Suresh Chander Phullar, M.H. Sexena and S.P.S. Dutta. 6. The statements of witnesses as recorded by trial court in his judgment reads as under :- PW-1, Ashok Koul in the year 1997 he was posted as Airport Manager, Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu. He has stated that in Nov. 1997 accused was posted at the said Airport as Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines. He is conversant with the procedure of Air Travel. Infant tickets are issued for travel of children, less than two years. As the infant is not provided seat, so infant ticket is required to be accompanied with an ticket. Sector of journey is also written on the ticket. In order to change the sector, a new ticket replaces old ticket and reference of the former is given to the latter. In order to change the name of passenger, old ticket is to be cancelled and it has no connection with the new ticket. While proving contents of a memo as EXPW-AK, he has stated that he had handed over documents to the CBI. Copy of the logbook dated 19.11.97 was seized by the CBI under this memo and in this log book the name of accused figures at Sr. No. 3. As per the log book, on 19.11.97 accused was deputed for luggage delivery and cash transaction log k was written by shift In-charge S.Z. Ali. Copy of the logbook dated 19.11.97 was seized by the CBI under this memo and in this log book the name of accused figures at Sr. No. 3. As per the log book, on 19.11.97 accused was deputed for luggage delivery and cash transaction log k was written by shift In-charge S.Z. Ali. The original logbook is deposited with the head office whereas carbon copy is retained which was given to the CBI. In cross-examination he has stated that the Air travel procedure is given in the Airport Handling Manual, though he cannot refer to its sanction, rule or clause. He had obtained the logbook from the shift in- charge and shown it to the CBI. Also he has admitted that in December 1997 a case was registered against Rattan Chand, Traffic Assistant, with allegation that he in connivance with a private agency was converting infant tickets to adult tickets. PW-2 Kewal Krishan, has stated that he was posted as Cashier in the office of Indian Airlines, Jammu from 04.06.97 to 1998. He can identify the signatures of Rattan Chand and the accused, if shown to him. Coupon of a ticket, he has stated that is retained for the entry in the official accounts is called the auditor coupon. Referring to the Flight coupon and the coupon No.0853945 in the file, he has failed to identify their scribe but has identified as that of the accused the signature dated 19.11.97 marked as Q26/1. This ticket according to him was issued in the name of Master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar Sector. Referring to the carbon copy, RM/2, he has stated that, given its number, it can be said that is should be the copy of the same ticket but in it name of the passenger is written as Mr. Vikram. In cross-examination he has stated that the audit coupon and the flight coupon have been seen for the first time in the court only. The investigating officer had enquired from him about ¾ cases relating to conversion of infant tickets to adult tickets, including that of the accused. There is no tampering in adult flight coupon is given to the passengers. PW-3, Romesh Malhotra, has stated that in the year 1997, he was posted as Manager Vigilance in Delhi Region. On 27.12.97 he had received a complaint, alleging that M/s Blue Bird Co. There is no tampering in adult flight coupon is given to the passengers. PW-3, Romesh Malhotra, has stated that in the year 1997, he was posted as Manager Vigilance in Delhi Region. On 27.12.97 he had received a complaint, alleging that M/s Blue Bird Co. have converted by tampering infant ticket to adult tickets, also changing the flight sectors thereof. Before referring case to CBI, a departmental enquiry was held. In the course of enquiry, one infant auditor coupon issued in the name of Master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar Sector issued from Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu was verified details of its flight coupon, obtained from the computer. It was found that the corresponding flight coupon issued with this auditor coupon was tampered in the manner that the name of one Mr. Vikram was written in place of Master Azim and flight sector was changed from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi. Rs.120 as fare was tampered to Rs.3105.In the result in place of Master Azim, Mr. Vikram was allowed to travel by the plane from Jammu to Delhi against payment of Rs.102 who had undertaken the journey thereby causing a loss of about Rs.3000 to the Airlines. He had, therefore, reported the mater to SP CBI vide his report dated 04.03.1998. The witness in the course of statement has produced photocopy of the report that has been marked as RM. Further he has stated that in the course of investigation he had handed over to Dy. SP, CBI, Mr. S.P.S. Dutta the original or coupon and the flight coupon against seizure memo dated 23.03.98, which he has proved as EXPW-RM. Also he has identified both the said coupons as documents No. 43 and 44 on the file. About the auditor coupon, he has stated that it was issued on 19.11.97 in the name of Master Azim, showing him as an infant, against payment of Rs.102 as fare. Saying that he having retired as Sr. Manager Vigilance from Indian Airlines as acquainted with all its procedure, he has stated that a child less than two years cannot travel without a guardian so ticket number of the person with whom the infant has to travel is also written on the infant ticket. On the infant ticket issued in the name of Master Azim was written a conjunction ticket also but no such ticket was issued by the Indian Airlines. On the infant ticket issued in the name of Master Azim was written a conjunction ticket also but no such ticket was issued by the Indian Airlines. On enquiry it was found that none had travelled on such ticket from Jammu to Srinagar or Jammu to Delhi. This makes it clear that the ticket in the name of Master Azim was issued with malafide intention and fictitious conjunction ticket number was shown in it. On enquiry from Jammu station, it was found that auditor coupon in the name of master Azim was issued by Surinder Dogra, who at that time was posted as Traffic Superintendent at Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu. Giving the structure of Indian Airlines tickets, he has stated that every ticket has four or three leaves. First leaf is called auditor coupon, second the flight coupon and third the office coupon. There are two flight coupons if the tickets are more than one sector. It could not be ascertained in the enquiry as in whose hand the adult coupon was written but during investigation by him, it was found that accused Surinder Dogra as the Airport Manager signed it, Ashok Kumar Koul had identified his signatures. (The auditor coupon marked as RM/1 for identification). Further he has stated that the Station Accountant collects the sale amount as per the auditor coupon from the In-charge and accounts for the same. Adverting to the flight coupon No. 0853549 dated 19.11.97 i.e., document No.44 marked as RM/2, he has stated that it should have been in the name of Master Azim too. On this coupon the fare has been written as Rs.3105, which as per auditor coupon should have been Rs.102/. Likewise the sector has been written as Jammu-Delhi, which should have been Jammu-Srinagar. The existence of utilization stamp on the flight coupon proves that the journey was conducted on its basis. Coupon wise entries made in the auditor coupon are not reflected in the flight coupon. The fare and tax columns in the auditor coupon have not been filled as it has been done in the flight coupon. The auditor and flight coupons are issued by the same person and not by the different persons. Both, the auditor and the flight coupons bear signatures of the same i.e. accused Surinder Dogra. He did not enquire as in whose hand the flight coupon was written. The auditor and flight coupons are issued by the same person and not by the different persons. Both, the auditor and the flight coupons bear signatures of the same i.e. accused Surinder Dogra. He did not enquire as in whose hand the flight coupon was written. Expressing his opinion, the witness has stated that the auditor coupon on its back is painted with red carbon and therefore, whatever written on the auditor coupon is reflected on the flight coupon and the office coupon. In order to commit mischief, the auditor coupon would have been written with light strokes and in the result the writing would have been reflected faintly on the flight coupon. Thereafter, the light reflection on the flight coupon would have been erased and dark reflection would have been arranged by placing an old coupon on it and writing on that. In alternative some paper would have been kept below the auditor coupon and in the result whatever written on the auditor coupon was not reflected on the flight coupon. In cross-examination he has stated that he had not named Surinder Dogra in his complaint. He had lodged the complaint on 07.12.97 and had also informed the Director Vigilance of the Airlines who had ordered scrutiny of the documents. About ten complaints were detected during scrutiny, one of them being the flight coupon of Master Azim. The tampering in the ticket of master Azim was detected in January or February, 98. He had stated in his statement before CBI about tampering in the ticket of Master Azim but had not stated anything about Surinder Dogra. PW-4, J. Chandera Hassan has stated that in 1998, he was posted as Sr. Assistant in Indian Airlines, Vigilance Office, New Delhi. He had assisted Sh. Ramesh Malhotra Sr. Manager Vigilance during enquiry. After enquiry, CBI had registered the case on complaint of Ramesh Malhotra. The complaint in fact was against M/s Blue Birds Travels. Expressing knowledge about procedure of ticking and boarding in Indian Airlines, he has stated that status of infant ticket cannot be changed to that of an adult ticket. Infant ticket cannot be independent of conjunction ticket. In cross-examination he has reiterated his personal knowledge about the above-mentioned procedure. PW-5 J.P. Jaiswar has stated that in the year 1997 he was posted as Station Manager, Jammu Station whereas the accused was posted as Superintendent, Indian Airlines. Infant ticket cannot be independent of conjunction ticket. In cross-examination he has reiterated his personal knowledge about the above-mentioned procedure. PW-5 J.P. Jaiswar has stated that in the year 1997 he was posted as Station Manager, Jammu Station whereas the accused was posted as Superintendent, Indian Airlines. Job of the accused was to handle the passenger. No infant ticket is issued independent of adult ticket and both tickets are in conjunction. No adult is allowed to travel against infant ticket. Coupon No.0853549 is auditor coupon in the name of master Azim. This has been issued for travel from Jammu to Srinagar against payment of Rs.102. This is infant ticket on which only 10% of the fare is charged and 90% is exempted. On it conjunction number is written as 4362009. This coupon is in the handwriting and under signature of the accused. This has been marked as exhibit PW-JP. Further he has stated that the other coupon is flight coupon of ticket No.0581/0853549. Exhibit PW-JP and No.0581/0853549 is the same thing, though on it the name is different. This ticket is issued in the name of Vikram. On it sector has been shown as Jammu-Delhi and charges as Rs.3105. Flight number is written as 421 and flight date as 19.11.1997. This is not an adult ticket but is a part of Ex.-JP. This ticket is also in the handwriting and under the signature of accused though he cannot say who has tampered the sector in it. This coupon has been marked as exhibit PW-JP/1. The witness has further stated that by issuing Ex.-JP and Ex.PW-JP/1financial loss has been caused to the Indian Airlines. Flight coupon and auditor coupon etc. are sent to Central Revenue Account Headquarters New Delhi. In cross-examination he has stated that in the year 1997 Rattan Chand was posted as Traffic Assistant and Permod Kumar as Sr. Traffic Superintendent. He had never received a complaint saying that Rattan Chand and Permod Kumar were involved in preparing infant tickets and changing their status and sector. The Blue Bird Agency was affiliated with Indian Airlines and used to operate for Srinagar. A challan involving 7/8 tickets against Blue Bird Agency is pending in the Ist Addl. Court, in which his statement has been recorded. Exhibits JP and JP/1 were issued from the counter. The Blue Bird Agency was affiliated with Indian Airlines and used to operate for Srinagar. A challan involving 7/8 tickets against Blue Bird Agency is pending in the Ist Addl. Court, in which his statement has been recorded. Exhibits JP and JP/1 were issued from the counter. As per the tickets shown to him, the accused should have been deputed at the counter, though, he cannot say, in absence of the roster as to where other employees on that day were posted. Exhibit JP is auditor coupon and JP1 is flight coupon. Flight coupon and jacket of auditor coupon remain with the passenger. By the term handling the passenger is meant every service connected with the passengers. Further he has stated that he is acquainted with handwriting and signature of all those employees of Indian Airlines who were posted at Jammu station. Also that he cannot say as to whether the Blue Bird Agency had tampered exhibits JP and JP/I. However, both of them are in the hand writing and under the signatures of the accused, though he cannot say who has changed sector and name in them. PW-6 Anil Kumar Verma Deputy General Manager Personnel Indian Airlines, has stated that in the year 1999 be was posted as Sr. Manager Personnel, Palm Airport. Kumari Sushma Chawla those days was posted as Regional Director and was competent to terminate services of the accused. He has worked under her for about one year and is acquainted with her signatures and hand writing. The witness has proved as exhibit AKV. The sanction order dated 29.01.1999 issued by the Regional Director Sushma Chawla. His statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. Only question asked in cross-examination is that Kumari Sushma Chawla is alive and posted as Director Finance. PW 7 Suresh Chander Phullar has stated that on 19.11.1997 he was posted in Indian Airlines at Jammu. Accused Surinder Dogra was his senior and had worked with him at Jammu. He is not much acquainted with the signature of the accused. Infant ticket is not issued independent of adult ticket. In cross-examination he has refused a particular portion of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. attributed to him. Further he has stated that the ticket shown to him by Mr. Dutta were in the handwriting of Rattan Chand. Mr. Dutta had not recorded his statement in his presence. Infant ticket is not issued independent of adult ticket. In cross-examination he has refused a particular portion of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. attributed to him. Further he has stated that the ticket shown to him by Mr. Dutta were in the handwriting of Rattan Chand. Mr. Dutta had not recorded his statement in his presence. He had denied knowledge as to who had issued the infant ticket and adult ticket bearing No.0853549. PW-8 H.M. Sexena, Deputy Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla has stated that the documents of case RC No.3 (A)/98/Jammu were received from CBI/ACB through letter No. 5361/3/3(a)/98/CBI/Jammu dated 16.07.98. He and his colleague M.L. Sharma Deputy GEQD examined the documents. The witness has proved a copy of the expert opinion given by him and M.L. Sharma has marked as HMS and the reasons for his opinion as exhibit PW-HMS. PW-9 SPS Dutta is an investigating officer. He has referred to the steps taken by him in the course of investigation and has in addition stated that he had obtained specimen handwriting of the accused in presence of witness Y.P. Sharma. 7. Court after recording the statement of accused/appellant under section 342 Cr.P.C. and appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him as narrated above. 8. Accused/appellant was charge sheeted under section 420, 467, 468, 471 R.P.C and section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of PC Act with allegations that on 19.11.1997 he prepared an infant ticket no.0581/0853549 in the name of fictitious person Master Azim for sector Jammu/Srinagar incorporating therein false conjunction ticket no.4362009 and amount of Rs.102 deposited with the cashier vide pay-in slip dated 19.11.1997; subsequently accused tampered the flight coupon of the same ticket by way of forgery and made it an adult in the name of Mr. Vikram and sector was changed to Jammu -Delhi and fare was also changed to Rs.3105/-; accused also made said Vikram to travel to Delhi on this forged ticket by flight no.422 dated 19.11.1997 seat no. 14; with above said Act accused caused loss of Rs.3003/- to the department. 9. Forgery is defined under Section 463 RPC. “463. Forgery. Vikram and sector was changed to Jammu -Delhi and fare was also changed to Rs.3105/-; accused also made said Vikram to travel to Delhi on this forged ticket by flight no.422 dated 19.11.1997 seat no. 14; with above said Act accused caused loss of Rs.3003/- to the department. 9. Forgery is defined under Section 463 RPC. “463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” 10. Making of false document is defined in Section 464 of RPC. “Sec.464. Making a false document. [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First- who dishonestly or fraudulently- makes, signs seals or executes a document or a part of a document; makes or transmits any electronic record or a part of any electronic record; affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; makes any mark denoting the execution a document or the authenticity of the digital signature; with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signal, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on an electronic record, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration].” 11. As per sections 463/464 RPC, the person who is charged with offence of forgery has to make sign, seal and to execute a document, which he knows that it is false. To attract sections 468 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. Further if the document is to be altered, it has to be some gain or with such objective on the part of the accused. For attracting section 471 RPC this forged document should have been used as genuine document. Dishonestly means doing any act in order to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another; fraudulently means act done with intent to defraud. 12. In present case as held by court below, firstly one has to see structure of an air-travel ticket and the meaning and procedure of issuing of an infant-ticket. PW-Romesh Malhotra the retired senior Manager, Indian Airlines, has stated about this fact; he has stated that a child less than two years cannot travel without a guardian and therefore, the ticket number of the person with whom the child has to travel is written on the infant ticket. He has further stated that every air ticket has three or four leaves. First leaf is called the Auditor coupon, second the flight coupon and third the office coupon. There are two flight coupons, if the ticket is for more than one sector. Further, that the same person issues the auditor coupon and the flight coupon. The Station Accountant collects from the in-charge the sale amount as per the auditor coupon and accounts for the same. That the auditor coupon has red carbon on its back and therefore, whatever written on the auditor coupon is reflected on the flight coupon and the office coupon. PW-Ashok Koul, the then Airport Manager, has stated that the infant tickets are issued for travel of children less than two years. As a seat is not provided to the infant, so the infant ticket is required to be accompanied with an adult ticket. PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that the coupon of the ticket that is retained for official accounts is called the auditor coupon and that while issuing the ticket the flight coupon is given to the passenger. As a seat is not provided to the infant, so the infant ticket is required to be accompanied with an adult ticket. PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that the coupon of the ticket that is retained for official accounts is called the auditor coupon and that while issuing the ticket the flight coupon is given to the passenger. PW JP Jaiswar, the then Station Manager, Jammu Station has stated that no infant ticket is issued independent of adult ticket and both the tickets are issued in conjunction. No adult is allowed to travel against the infant ticket. In addition, he has stated that the infant-ticket has 90% concession in fare and only 10% of the fare is charged. Thus, it is clear that the air-travel ticket of the Indian Airlines is in three counterparts i.e. first Auditor coupon, second the flight coupon and third the office coupon and these are prepared by one uniform process by the same person at the same time. The auditor coupon has red carbon on its back and the person issuing the ticket whatever writes on the auditor coupon, is reflected on the other counterparts under it i.e. flight coupon and the office coupon. That is how the same uniform process; all the three parts are prepared by person issuing the tickets. Further from the evidence it is apparent that at the time of issuing a ticket the auditor coupon is retained by the Airlines for maintaining official accounts and the flight coupon is given to the passenger. Infant-ticket is issued for the travel of a child, below two years on payment of the 10% of the normal fare and on that ticket is written the number of that adult's ticket, with whom the minor has to travel. That adult's ticket vis-à-vis the infant ticket is called the conjunction ticket. 13. Infant-ticket is issued for the travel of a child, below two years on payment of the 10% of the normal fare and on that ticket is written the number of that adult's ticket, with whom the minor has to travel. That adult's ticket vis-à-vis the infant ticket is called the conjunction ticket. 13. Auditor coupon and flight coupon have been seized during investigation as No.43 and 44 respectively and apparently it looks that both these coupons bear numbers 0581 & No.0853559; auditor coupon bears name of master Azim and destiny as from Jammu-Srinagar at cost at Rs.102/- and conjunction Ticket number also, whereas Flight coupon bearing number 0581-no 0853559 would reveal that it bears name of passenger Vikram, destiny as Jammu- Delhi and amount as Rs.3105 and no conjunction Ticket number has been given; during investigation handwritings on these coupons have been marked as Q-26,Q-26/1 and Q-27, Q-27/1 respectively; admitted handwriting and specimens signatures of appellant/accused were obtained during investigation and sent to FSL for examination. 14. Seizure of these coupons has been proved by PW-Romesh Malhotra, the then Manager Vigilance, Indian Airlines, who has stated that he had given these coupons to the CBI Inspector, S.P.Dutta, vide memo Ex.PW-RM. PW-S.P.S, Dutta, the Investigating officer, has also stated that both these coupons were provided by Romesh Malhotra during investigation of FIR No.3/98 and were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-RM. 15. Next prosecution was to prove that, appellant/accused was posted at that relevant time at Airport on 19.11.1997, and was operating the ticket sale counter at Jammu and his duty was to prepare and sell the Indian Airlines tickets to the passengers and he was author of these coupons. 16. From the perusal of evidence on record, it is evident that PW-Ashok Koul has stated that in November 1997 accused was posted as Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines at Jammu. PW-J.P Jaiswar has stated that the accused in 1997 was posted as Superintendent, Indian Airlines at Jammu and his duty was handling of the passengers. Elaborating in the cross-examination, he has stated that handling of the passengers means every service connected with the passengers. PW-Kewal Krishan, the then Cashier. Indian Airlines, Jammu, has stated that in 1997 the accused was posted at Jammu Airport. 17. Elaborating in the cross-examination, he has stated that handling of the passengers means every service connected with the passengers. PW-Kewal Krishan, the then Cashier. Indian Airlines, Jammu, has stated that in 1997 the accused was posted at Jammu Airport. 17. This fact has not been denied by accused as no cross examination in this regard was done from these two witnesses; the I.O. has contented with seizure from PW-Ashok Koul, the then Airport Manager, of a carbon copy of the logbook of airport. It has been marked as EXPW-AK. 18. Counsel for appellant has contended that original log book has not been seized, so no reliance can be placed on this carbon copy of logbook. This contention is without any force as carbon copy is made at the same time when original is made. 19. Section 62 of Evidence Act deals with primary evidence and which is relevant for the present purpose, runs as follows: "62. Primary evidence:--Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Explanation 1 :--Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. Explanation 2 :--Where a number of documents arc all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest, but where they are all copies of a common original they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original." 20. Explanation 2 is relevant for present case. It says that where a number of documents are made by one uniform process, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest. Under Explanation 2, all the documents must be taken at a time under one uniform process in which case, each of such documents is a primary evidence of the contents of the rest. Printing, cyclostyle, lithography are some mechanisms which are recognized under law through which documents can be obtained under a uniform process. Under Explanation 2, all the documents must be taken at a time under one uniform process in which case, each of such documents is a primary evidence of the contents of the rest. Printing, cyclostyle, lithography are some mechanisms which are recognized under law through which documents can be obtained under a uniform process. Thus, documents prepared under the uniform process of either printing or cyclostyle or lithography cannot be mere copies in strict legal sense of the term, in fact, they are all counterpart originals and each of such documents is a primary evidence of its contents. 21. Next prosecution is to prove that; it is accused who was author of these two coupons. 22. Court below in order to find out this aspect of the matter has held as under:- “To prove that the accused had prepared both the coupons i.e., the auditor coupon and the flight coupon on 19-11-1997, the prosecution, in absence of the direct evidence, has relied upon the opinion evidence, that is relevant u/ss 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court, AIR 1967 S.C.1326, has laid down that:- “(10) Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives treatment in three sections of the India Evidence Act. They are sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a handwriting expert (S.45) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus besides direct evidence that is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (S.73) is comparison by the court with a writing made in the presence of the court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person." As regards the opinion based on familiarity, Sr.P.P. CBI has referred mainly to the statement of PW-J.P.Jaiswar, who at the relevant time was posted as Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Jammu Station. In addition, he has referred to the statement of PW- Kewal Krishan, who was posted as Cashier in the office of the Indian Airlines at Jammu. PW-J.P. Jaiswar has said that in the year 1997 he was posted as Station Manager of Jammu Station whereas the accused was posted as Superintendent. He is acquainted with the signature of the accused. In cross-examination, he has reaffirmed that he is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of all the employees of Indian Airlines posted at the Jammu Station in the year 1997. Referring to the auditor coupon and the flight coupon on the file he has stated that they are in the handwriting and under signatures of the accused though he cannot say as to who has tampered the sector in the flight coupon. In his statement, these coupons have been marked as exhibits PW-JP and PW-JP/1.As regards the auditor coupon, exhibit JP, he has further explained that it is an infant-ticket for Rs.102, issued in the name of master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar sector. On it a conjunction number is shown as 43662009. As regards the flight coupon, he has stated that this and the exhibit PW-JP is the same thing but the flight coupon is issued in the name of one Vikram for Jammu-Delhi sector and the charges have been shown as Rs.3105. In it, the flight number is also given as 421. Nothing as regards the above statement of the witness has been asked to him in the cross-examination so it is to be believed that the defense has not disputed this part of his statement. The cross/examination is focused on his knowledge and information about cases of tampering in the Air-tickets against a travel agency, namely, Blue Bird Agency. Nothing as regards the above statement of the witness has been asked to him in the cross-examination so it is to be believed that the defense has not disputed this part of his statement. The cross/examination is focused on his knowledge and information about cases of tampering in the Air-tickets against a travel agency, namely, Blue Bird Agency. On the other hand, even in the cross-examination he has stated that in face of the tickets shown to him, the accused on that should have been deputed on the counter. Again, he has reaffirmed that exhibits PW-JP and PW-JP/1 are both in the hand writing and under the signatures of the accused but has also said that he cannot say as to who has changed the sector and the name in it. PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that from June 1997 to 1998 he was posted as cashier in the office of Indian Airlines at Jammu whereas the accused, whom he knows, was posted at the Airport. He can identify the signature and hand writing of the accused, if shown to him. While referring to the flight coupon and auditor coupon on the file he has stated that the signature, Q26/1 dated 19-1-97 is of the accused. Q 26/1, as would be noted hereinafter, while appreciating statements of the handwriting expert and the I.O. is said to be the mark given to the signature of the person having issued the flight coupon. Nothing, as regards his competence to identify signature at Q 26/1, has been asked to this witness in cross-examination.” 23. The court below has also repelled the argument of counsel for accused that both of these two witnesses used to operate from city office of the Indian Airlines, whereas the accused, as per the prosecution case was operating at the airport so they were not acquainted with the hand writing and signature of the accused. The court below has said that competence of the witnesses to identify signatures or the handwriting of the accused was not challenged in the cross-examination. Court below has relied upon AIR 1967 Mysore 210, has observed as under :- “The Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of PW-6 as he (PW-6) was the person who was the superior of the accused. Court below has relied upon AIR 1967 Mysore 210, has observed as under :- “The Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of PW-6 as he (PW-6) was the person who was the superior of the accused. He was the post-master of Head Post Office of Sedam and the accused was the Branch Post Master of Chintapalli, which was under Sedam Head Post Office. Being the immediate superior he had the occasion to see the handwriting and the signature of the accused and there is no reason why due weight should not be attached to his evidence. He has deposed that he knows the hand writing of the accused very well. He has not been questioned in this regard in the cross-examination. Therefore his evidence in examination-in-chief remained unchallenged. Having regard to all these circumstances I am unable to accept contention urged on behalf of appellant-accused that the Sessions Judge was wrong in having reached the conclusion that the disputed writing and the signatures on these documents were of accused...." 24. The court below has also held that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused is the author of the auditor coupon Ex. PW-JP, as also the flight coupon Ex.PW-JP/1. The court below also held that contents of flight coupon was proved by relying upon judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 857 , wherein it is held: “(11).... The proof of the genuineness of the document is proof of the authorship of the document and his proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of a direct evidence of a person who was the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be the proof of the handwriting of the contents, of the signature, by one of the mode provided by ss. 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act.” 25. Further, Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73 of Evidence Act jointly prescribe the following methods of proving handwriting;- 1. By evidence of the writer himself (Section 67). 2. By expert opinion (Section 45). 3. By evidence of person who is acquainted with handwriting (Section 47). 4. By comparison of the handwriting in question with the handwriting of an alleged writer (Section 73). 26. By evidence of the writer himself (Section 67). 2. By expert opinion (Section 45). 3. By evidence of person who is acquainted with handwriting (Section 47). 4. By comparison of the handwriting in question with the handwriting of an alleged writer (Section 73). 26. Section 47 of Evidence Act reads as under:- “Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.” 27. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person writes, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. In terms of section 47 of Evidence Act, court may form opinion on the basis of evidence of person/witness; 1. Who has seen the person writes, or 2. Who has received documents purporting to have been written by that person in answer to document written by the witness, or 3. Who has in ordinary course of business received documents purporting to have been written by that person or such documents have been habitually submitted to him. Who has seen the person writes, or 2. Who has received documents purporting to have been written by that person in answer to document written by the witness, or 3. Who has in ordinary course of business received documents purporting to have been written by that person or such documents have been habitually submitted to him. According to Section 47, the opinion of person who is acquainted with the handwriting of another is relevant. Thus, the statement of person in whose presence the writing was made or the person who is habitually receiving letters from that person is relevant. If a person is familiar with this writing is also relevant. In present, it is admitted fact that PW5 J.P. Jaiswar was head of Indian Airline at, Jammu and accused was subordinate to him; so definitely he would be receiving communication from accused and so was familiar with handwriting of accused; similarly PW Kewal Krishan was colleague of accused, thus has ample opportunity to be acquainted with handwriting of accused. 28. Further, court below has relied the evidence of PW-H. M. Sexena-expert witness, who has stated that in RCNo.3(A) 98/Jammu documents were received for opinion of GEQD from CBI/ACB Jammu vide letter No.5361/3(a)98/CBIL/Jammu dated 16.07.98. The disputed documents were marked in Q series from Q 12 to Q27, Q26/1 and Q27/1. Also were received specimen and admitted writings and signatures of eight persons that were marked Sl to S114, S115, S115 (A) and S 115 (B). The witness has then stated that he and his colleague M.L. Sharma, Deputy GEQD had examined those documents independently and had reached at the same conclusion and both of them had signed the opinion. The witness has identified his signature as also that of his colleague M.L.Sharma on a photocopy of the opinion placed on record of this file that has been marked as HMS. Also he has proved as Ex-HMS, his written reasons in support of his opinion. In this report, he has in particular referred to two paras that has been marked as A and A/1. In addition he has stated that Q26 and Q26/1 are exhibits Ex -JP and Q 27 and Q27/1 are the exhibits Ex.PW-JP/1. Also he has referred on the file to the specimen writing/signatures of accused that have been marked as exhibits HMS/1 to HMS/9. In addition he has stated that Q26 and Q26/1 are exhibits Ex -JP and Q 27 and Q27/1 are the exhibits Ex.PW-JP/1. Also he has referred on the file to the specimen writing/signatures of accused that have been marked as exhibits HMS/1 to HMS/9. The witness has in particular referred to Para 5 of his opinion that reads as under; "5. The persons who wrote the enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S 55 and S 63 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q26, Q26/,027 and Q27/1” Para marked as A in the written reasons of the witness reads as under: - "My opinion that, "the person who wrote the enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S 55 to S 63 also wrote closed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q26, Q26/1, Q27 and Q27/1", is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities observed between the questioned and standard writings both in their individual and in general writing habits of moment, speak, skill, slant, spacing, alignment, relatives size and proportion of character as well as nature of their commencement, combination, simplification and termination of various strokes." 29. The argument of counsel for appellant that specimen writings/signatures of the accused have not been sufficiently proved inasmuch as the available independent witness, M.L. Sharma, has neither been cited nor produced as witness. This argument is not tenable as prosecution has to prove the case on preponderance of probability of facts. There is no rule of law that court while appreciating the evidence of prosecution has to see quantity of witnesses. In terms of section 134 of Evidence Act only quality of witness matter. Once a criminal court comes to conclusion that only witness to certain relevant fact in issue, inspires confidence, then court can believe existence of that fact. Another argument that opinion sought from the handwriting expert has not been proved, as letter under which the documents were sent to the expert has not been placed on record, is also not tenable. By not placing that letter by virtue of which specimen handwriting of accused during course of trial, I am of view that no prejudice has been caused to accused, because, accused has stated in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C that his specimen handwriting was not obtained by I/O during investigation. By not placing that letter by virtue of which specimen handwriting of accused during course of trial, I am of view that no prejudice has been caused to accused, because, accused has stated in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C that his specimen handwriting was not obtained by I/O during investigation. Court below in this regard has relied on 2003 Cr.L.J 2021 in case titled Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein it has been held as under:- "8.... The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witness their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favor of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distress and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each cash and no principle of general can be laid down.” 30. Another argument that specimens handwriting of accused were not obtained, in presence of magistrate, so investigation in the matter suffers from basic infirmity of laws, is also not tenable because it is not a universal law that specimens handwriting of accused during the course of investigation have to be obtained before magistrate; it is only a rule of caution that generally the specimens handwriting of the accused should be obtained in presence of Magistrate in order to conduct fair investigation; but mere not obtaining the specimens of handwriting of accused in presence of magistrate, it does not make whole prosecution case unbelievable, when there is sufficient reliable evidence against accused available in file that he has committed forgery. 31. Further, Flight coupon EXPW-JP/1 shows stamp as utilized; PW Romesh Malhotra, who was posted as Manager Vigilance in Delhi Region has stated that during the course of enquiry, one infant auditor coupon issued in the name of Master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar Sector issued from Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu was verified details of its flight coupon, obtained from the computer. It was found that the corresponding flight coupon issued with this auditor coupon was tampered in the manner that the name of one Mr. Vikram was written in place of Master Azim and flight sector was changed from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi. Rs.120 as fare was tampered to Rs.3105. It was found that the corresponding flight coupon issued with this auditor coupon was tampered in the manner that the name of one Mr. Vikram was written in place of Master Azim and flight sector was changed from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi. Rs.120 as fare was tampered to Rs.3105. He is also witness to seizure memo dated 23.03.98 of coupons EXPW-RM. The existence of utilization stamp on the flight coupon proves that the journey was conducted on its basis. The auditor and flight coupons are issued by the same person and not by the different persons. The credibility of this witness was not shaken during cross examination. No animosity of this witness was proved by defense against accused. Therefore, findings of court below are neither perverse nor suffer from any infirmities of law and facts. 32. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of considered opinion that judgment of conviction passed by court below does not suffer from any infirmity of law and facts. It is upheld accordingly. So far as sentence for undergoing simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of offences punishable under each Sections 420, 468 & 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, are concerned, these are quite appropriate in present set of case. These are also upheld accordingly. 33. The instant appeal stands dismissed. Record of court below be sent back with direction to court to issue process against accused for undergoing rest of imprisonment.