JUDGMENT : 1. Above mentioned two appeals are preferred by two appellants assailing the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.9.2000 passed by Sri Dulal Chandra De, WBHJS, Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court at Calcutta in case No. 4 of 1989 convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offence punishable under Sections 420/468 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, however, no separate sentence on conviction under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was passed. Grounds taken is that the learned Judge relied on inadmissible evidence and the impugned judgment is bad in law and in fact. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that in response to the requisition sent by Deputy Commissioner of Police Headquarter Kolkata the Directorate of Employment Exchange sponsored 1200 candidates for preliminary selection against the vacancies in the post of constable of Calcutta Police Force. The candidates who were requested to sponsor belonging to different Districts 24-Parganas (North), 24-Parganas (South), Nadia, Murshidabad, Malda, West Dinajpur, Birbhum in addition to Calcutta. From the District Employment Exchange, Rampurhat district Employment Exchange, Rampurhat, Birbhum was asked to sponsor the name of 30 (thirty) general candidates, 10 (ten) S.C. candidates, 3 (three) S.T. candidates and 1 (one) Ex-2 serviceman candidate. The date of interview selection was scheduled on 10th September, 1987 at 9 A. M. at the Police training School at 247, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700027. From the District Employment Exchange, Rampurhat the Deputy Commissioner of Police Headquarter Calcutta received two lists of sponsored candidates, one was delivered by special messenger and another was though registered post Accordingly on 7th September, 1987 D.C. Headquarter wrote a letter to the Directorate of Employment Exchange, Kolkata on verification of the said list Directorate of Employment Exchange Confirmed that the list bearing receiving entry no. 10699/CRO dated 4th September, 1987 was genuine but the list for was during the candidates under the Memo No. 10A/24/87, dated 2nd September, 1987 was fake. Accordingly on the date of intermission at the Police Training School the candidates whose name appeared in the fake list were segregated from the candidates who were sponsored by genuine list. 10699/CRO dated 4th September, 1987 was genuine but the list for was during the candidates under the Memo No. 10A/24/87, dated 2nd September, 1987 was fake. Accordingly on the date of intermission at the Police Training School the candidates whose name appeared in the fake list were segregated from the candidates who were sponsored by genuine list. At the time of intermission one of the candidates in fake list Sk. Kazem Ali Khan (P.W. 9) on interrogation admitted that he gave a bribe of Rs. 4000/- to an employee of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court at Rampurhat and received the interview letter from him. The competent authority of the Directorate of Employment, thereafter, wrote letter bearing no. 1R - 16/87/SG (43)/30097A dated 10th September, 1987 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Detective Department, Lalbazar, Kolkata to investigate the matter aforesaid and take appropriate action regarding the offence alleged. Based on the said complaint, the authority of the Hare Street Police Station had drawn an unknown FIR being no. 571/87 dated 19th September, 1987 under Section 120B/420, 420, 468, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the materials available during investigation famed charge against the three charge-sheeted accused persons under Sections 420/468/471 1PC read with section 120B IPC and also under Sections 420/34 IPC, 468/34 IPC and under Section 471/34 IPC after the case was committed to the Court of the Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta cognizance was taken on 06.02.1989 and the trial was started on framing of the said charges against the accused persons/appellants herein since the appellants abjured the guilt claiming trial. The charges against the appellants was further amended on 31.7.1996. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 25 (twenty five) witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants and after completion of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which each to them declined to adduce any defence witness. 5. The defence is one of denial of charges which emerged from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the statement of the appellants. 6. The learned Trial Court on Completion of Trial acquitted the accused Syed Sariful Islam however, both the accused namely Ashok Das and Sk. 5. The defence is one of denial of charges which emerged from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the statement of the appellants. 6. The learned Trial Court on Completion of Trial acquitted the accused Syed Sariful Islam however, both the accused namely Ashok Das and Sk. Sarjuman appellants in CRA 356 of 2000 and CRA 374 of 2000 were convicted under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each for committing offence under Section 420/468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and under each count, however, no separate sentence for the offences punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was passed with direction to set off the pre-trial detention undergone by the accused persons/appellants under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and that all sentences would run concurrently. 7. Now, the point for decision is as to whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law and in fact in the context of the evidence on record and submission made on behalf of the rival parties. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellants invited my attention to certain contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and submitted that P.W. 1 Tushar Kanti Sur S.I. of Police deputed in Central Reserve Office, Lalbazar, Kolkata deposed that a second list Exhibit- 4 was received by Central Reserve Office, Kolkata P.S. directly received from Rampurhat Employment Exchange through post and also admitted that the said list, though was addressed to D.C. Police, Head Quarters, but was not delivered to that office address. Even in Exhibit- 4, there was no endorsement by the Central Reserve Office (CRO). 9. P.W. 2 Ashim Kr. Pathak, Constable in 1987 was attached to Central Reserve Office, Lalbazar deposed in his cross-examination that the letters addressed to the D.C., Head Quarters is not received by the Central Reserve Office (CRO) of Kolkata Police and P.W. 3 also corroborated the said P.W. 2 that the office of the Central Reserve Office of Kolkata Police did not receive any such letter. Yet, the letter being marked as Exhibit- 4, though addressed to the D.C., Head Quarters was allegedly received by the Central Reserve Office (CRO) of Kolkata Police. 10. P.W. 3 stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no enclosure with the letter bearing no. Yet, the letter being marked as Exhibit- 4, though addressed to the D.C., Head Quarters was allegedly received by the Central Reserve Office (CRO) of Kolkata Police. 10. P.W. 3 stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no enclosure with the letter bearing no. 10A/24/87 dated 02.9.1987 Exhibit- 4 purportedly received from the Rampurhat Employment Exchange but he had received the said letter Exhibit- 4 and put the receiving seal with the receiving entry number as 10703 upon it. P.W. 1 stated that the said letter Exhibit- 4 was entered in the Received Register vide serial no. 10703 by the P.W. 2, namely, Ashim Kumar Pathak. 11. P.W. 4 stated in his cross-examination that by perusing the registration number and NCO he ascertained the fake nature of the list in question. But in his following statements it is found that there was no difference in terms of NCO numbers nor in terms of registration number or educational qualification. He also admitted that he had not seen the said lists earlier and after getting the same, did not verify both the lists at Rampurhat Employment Exchange, where both the lists were purportedly made. 12. It is submitted further that the P.W. 9, Kazen Ali Khan one of the victims of crime was declared hostile because he stated that he did not get any letter at the interview at Calcutta Police Training School but at the same time, he has stated that he went to Police Training School, Calcutta on 10.9.1987 to face interview. He has learnt about his call letter in the exchange in his name by the villager. Exhibit- 13 bears his signature. He has also signed on Exhibits- 14, 15 & 16 on four documents at Rampurhat Exchange. He had identified the accused persons/appellants during trial. His evidence could reveal that he had been to Calcutta Police Training School but he could not know why he was not allowed to appear in the interview. Though, he has denied having made any statement to the police. 13. My attention is also invited to the evidence of Santiram Ghosh, P.W. 10 victim presently Constable of Kolkata Police who has stated on oath that in 1987 he went to accused Sk. Sarjuman of SDJM Court, Rampurhat and he requested him to arrange for a call letter for the post of Constable in Kolkata Police. Said Sk. 13. My attention is also invited to the evidence of Santiram Ghosh, P.W. 10 victim presently Constable of Kolkata Police who has stated on oath that in 1987 he went to accused Sk. Sarjuman of SDJM Court, Rampurhat and he requested him to arrange for a call letter for the post of Constable in Kolkata Police. Said Sk. Sarjuman went to Rampurhat Employment Exchange and the said P.W. 10 was kept waiting outside the office. Said Sk. Sarjuman had talked to Ashok Babu, a Clerk in the said Employment Exchange and both of the accused. The P.W. 10 has identified both the said accused persons/appellants herein. He deposed that said Ashok asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- for getting a call letter and told him that he need not come to pay him the money rather he has to pay through Sk. Sarjuman, the another accused. On the following day P.W. 10 paid Sk. Sarjuman a sum of Rs. 1000/- in Rampurhat SDJM Court and seven days after said Sarjuman handed over to him a call letter for employment for Calcutta Police. When he was in the queue at PTS for interview he along with nine others were called out of the queue by the police and police officer told them that their registration cards Exhibits- 17 and call letters Exhibits- 18 were forged documents. 14. In cross-examination P.W. 10 has unequivocally stated on oath that he had given Rs. 1000/- to Ashok Das through accused Sk. Sarjuman. Therefore, his evidence is unimpeachable. 15. P.W. 11 Sk. Moor Salim is another victim who has stated on oath that for the purpose of getting a call letter, he paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- at a time to Ashok Das and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also paid for call letter in favour of his nephew Ansur Ali. 16. In cross-examination he has stated on oath that he had a contract with accused Ashok Das for payment of Rs. 18,000/- in all. He made payment to him at Prachi Hotel, Rampurhat and during such discussion accused Sk. Sarjuman was present. He went to the house of accused Sk. Sarjuman and had paid to him Rs. 3,000/- himself and Rs. 3,000/- for nephew and then he had collected call letter at Rampurhat Employment Exchange. 18,000/- in all. He made payment to him at Prachi Hotel, Rampurhat and during such discussion accused Sk. Sarjuman was present. He went to the house of accused Sk. Sarjuman and had paid to him Rs. 3,000/- himself and Rs. 3,000/- for nephew and then he had collected call letter at Rampurhat Employment Exchange. He has proved his call letter as Exhibit- 20 but he was told by Police Officer at PTS when he went for interview that his call letter was a forged document. 17. Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal, P.W. 17 is also the victim of crime who deposed that Sk. Sarjuman had asked him to pay Rs. 3,000/- for getting a call letter and that he would have to pay to him further sum of Rs. 12,000/- after recruitment and upon payment of Rs. 3,000/- has was given a call letter and he went to PTS, Calcutta for interview on 10th September, 1987 but he was not allowed to attend the interview and testimonials being identity card and call letters were taken from him which were forged documents. 18. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the said prosecution witnesses Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 17 did not go to appellant Sk. Sarjuman to manage any employment as a Police Constable and their evidence in cross-examination creates doubt in the prosecution case in respect of the bribe given to any of the appellants for getting employment card and a call letter for the said post of Constable. 19. It is submitted that Sk. Kalim Hossein, P.W. 19 a seizure list witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, disapproving the prosecution case in respect of the seizure of Type Writer machine by the I.O. I am of the view that simply because a witness has been declared hostile, his evidence cannot be rejected on that ground alone and the evidence reveals that he identified one accused called Safi in Judge Court premises, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been absolute hollowness of the prosecution case revealing lacunae in the investigation procedure. 20. Sri Biswanath Hazra P.W. 20 LDC under Directorate of Employment was posted in Dispatch Section in 1987 who has testified the fact that on 24.6.1987 entry no. 20. Sri Biswanath Hazra P.W. 20 LDC under Directorate of Employment was posted in Dispatch Section in 1987 who has testified the fact that on 24.6.1987 entry no. 20785-813A (2) are in his hand writing and proved letters sent to 28 (twenty-eight) employment officers in charge with copy to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Lalbazar Head Quarters, Kolkata and Employment Officer in Charge, North Calcutta Exhibit- 52 which was dispatched by him under the letter Exhibit- 25. 21. Md. Sahadat P.W. 21 testified the fact that search was conducted by Police in the house of Sk. Sarjuman and he had signed on the paper Exhibit- 53. 22. P.W. 22 Tapan Kumar Debangshi was also a victim who deposed that his name was due to be forwarded to the Calcutta Police Line by Suri Employment Exchange and he had met Sk. Sarjuman at Employment Exchange who told P.W. 22 that if he paid him Rs. 2,000/- then he would arrange for sending his name to Calcutta Police Line. One week thereafter accused Sk. Sarjuman came to his house in village and gave him the documents against payment of Rs. 2,000/- in cash. Thereafter, he came to Calcutta Police Line on 10.9.1987 to face interview and he was called by police and the documents were collected from him and the police had told him that those documents were fake. 23. Having considered the oral testimony of P.W. 22, I do not agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that he did not stay in Village- Belia at the relevant point of time and failed to remember the location where the appellant Sk. Sarjuman used to reside in view of the fact that the Charge-sheet shows the address of P.W. 22 at Village- Belia. 24. P.W. 23 Tushar Kanti Guha was Officer-in-Charge of Mohammad Bazar P.S. in the year 1987 who had conducted raid in the house of the appellant after he had received a requisition on 11.9.1987 from S.I. of Police D.D., Calcutta for assisting and conducting the search in his P.S. area in connection with Hare Street P.S. Case No. 571/87, Exhibit- 57. The search was conducted in presence of local witnesses in the house of Sk. Sarjuman. The search was conducted in presence of local witnesses in the house of Sk. Sarjuman. One personal diary was recovered containing Accounts of deals of monetary transaction in different pages which was seized under a seizure list bearing his signature Exhibit- 3/1 and the seized diary Exhibit-54. 25. Sujoy Kumar Chanda, P.W. 24 a seizure list witness was Statistical Assistant in Rampurhat Employment Exchange in respect of a seizure list of one rubber stamp impression, two pink colour blank Identity Cards and two blank proforma call letters wherein he himself and one Pulak Palit put their signatures as Exhibits- 59 and 59/1 and the material seized have been proved as MAT Exhibit- I. He knew the hand writing of accused Ashok Kumar Das in the entry dated 27.7.1987 in the vacancy order register (Exhibit- 32/15/1) and the receipt in the hand writing of said Ashok Kumar Das proved as Exhibit- 33/14/1 and the entry serial no. 259261 dated 2.9.1987 as Exhibit- 33/14/2 in the hand writing of Ashok Kumar Das. 26. Prabir Kumar Dasgupta, P.W. 25 S.I. of Police D.D. Lalbazar Investigating and Recording Officer has proved the FIR Exhibit- 60 and a complaint addressed to Dy. Commissioner of Police, D.D., Lalbazar from Sri R.P. Ghosh Additional Director of Employment, Government of West Bengal on the subject of selection of Constable/ Sepoys of Calcutta Police for the recruitment in the year 1988 for the fake candidates which complaint was proved an Exhibit- 11. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted Charge-sheet. On appraisal of the evidence of the I.O., I do not find any lacunae in his investigation. 27. Per contra, at the outset, it is submitted on behalf of State respondent that the allegation against both the appellants are quite serious as they took money from the victims (unemployed youth) and by preparing false documents namely fake and false call letters and handed over the same to the victims and simultaneously prepared fake and false office memo referring the names of the victims and communicated the same to the D.C., Headquarter as if they were nominated by the Concerned Employment Exchange Rampurhat. 28. As I have discussed above that as many as 25 (twenty-five) prosecution witnesses were examined out of them four were the victims P.W. 9 Kazem Ali Khan, P.W. 10 Shanti Ram Ghosh, P.W. 11 Sk. Moor Selim, P.W. 17 Swapan Kumar Mondal and P.W. 12 Tapan Debangshi. 28. As I have discussed above that as many as 25 (twenty-five) prosecution witnesses were examined out of them four were the victims P.W. 9 Kazem Ali Khan, P.W. 10 Shanti Ram Ghosh, P.W. 11 Sk. Moor Selim, P.W. 17 Swapan Kumar Mondal and P.W. 12 Tapan Debangshi. The other witnesses are witness of seizure of different incriminating materials, police personnel and others. As regards doubt on forged list Exhibit- 4, it is submitted that it was not received directly at the office of D.C. Police Headquarter and it was delivered to them from the office of Central Reserve Office (CRO), Kolkata Police, although, addressed to D.C. Headquarter as revealed from the evidence in chief of P.W. l who categorically stated that the list Exhibit- 4 was received directly from the Rampurhat Employment Exchange to their office by post and the forwarding letter along-with the list Exhibit- 4 has been duly entered in the receipt resister vide serial no. 10703 although it is claimed by the appellant there was no endorsement by the ICRO but in his cross-examination the P.W. 1 stated that endorsement of CRO is not compulsory. Sometimes such list directly received by CRO and sometimes the P.W. 1 received the list and put it to the CRO. He further stated he could have dealt with any papers in recruitment section without any endorsement by the CRO and papers so received when they are placed before CRO he used to give his direction either in writing or verbally. The aforesaid evidence of the P.W. 1 that too in cross-examination by the defence went unchallenged. 29. Learned Advocate for the appellants argued that there is doubt regarding Exhibit- 4 and invited my attention to the P.W. 2 in his cross-examination who categorically admitted that the letter in question was received at the office of CRO. Only thing he said that if any letter is received in closed envelop addressed to the D.C., Headquarter they do not receive the same, but it is not the case of prosecution that was received in a closed envelope therefore what P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 stated are totally irrelevant to doubt the receipt of Exhibit- 4 at the office of CR0 and no importance should be given on it but in his chief stated that he received the letter no. 10A/24/87/259-61 dated 2nd September, 1987 Exhibit- 4 by himself and made the necessary entry in his own handwriting in the register book entry no, 10699, dated 4th September, 1987 whereas the P.W. 3 claimed to have receive the letter bearing no. 10A/24/87 dated 2nd September, 1987 and the same was recorded in the register as entry no. 10703, dated 7th September, 1987. The two letters are different and it is the specific case of the prosecution out of those two memos the letter received against the entry no. 10699 dated 4th September, 1987 was fake while the other was genuine. 30. Next phase of argument under the caption "Doubt Regarding the participation of the Appellant namely Sk. Sarjuman" from the facts stated in Para 6, 7 and 8 the defence tried to draw support from the evidence of P.W. 9 who was declared hostile for having resiled from his earlier statement made during investigation before the police. 31. The defence referred to the evidence of P.W. 9 in his chief that that he did not obtain any letter to appear in the said interview at the Calcutta Police Training School and for the same he did not approach anybody. He has also stated that he had put his signature on some purported documents (marked as Exhibits-13 to 16) in Rampurhat Employment Exchange. It is submitted that after he was declared hostile he was cross-examined by the prosecution on this score to establish what he stated in the court in chief is contrary to his earlier statement before the police. 32. It is well settled that no part of evidence of a hostile witness can be acted upon by the court to reach to any decision as to the guilt or innocence of an accused relying on that part of evidence on which reference to his earlier statement. Equally it is settled law that even after a witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, his evidence, as a matter of law cannot be treated as washed of the record altogether. Still that part of the evidence of such witness, which was not confronted by the prosecution and if the same is corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. 33. Still that part of the evidence of such witness, which was not confronted by the prosecution and if the same is corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. 33. I have discussed that the P.W. 10 Shanti Ram Ghosh who is now a Constable in Calcutta Police was one of the victims who identified both the appellants namely, Ashok Kumar Das and Sk. Sarjuman in court. According to his evidence accused Sk. Sarjuman of SDJM court Rampurhat took him to Rampurhat Employment Exchange and kept him waiting outside and said Sk. Sarjuman went inside the office and then introduced him with the appellant Ashok Das a clerk of Rampurhat Employment Exchange. Accused Ashok told P.W.10 to pay Rs. 1000/- for the call letter and asked him to pay through appellant Sk. Sarjuman and on the following day he paid the money to the said Sk. Sarjuman and accused Sarjuman after 7/8 days handed over to him the call letter. On 10th September, 1987 when he came to Calcutta Police Training School, the Police Office told him that the call letter was forged. 34. Even if the P.W. 10 stated in his cross-examination that he was introduced with the appellant Ashok Kumar Das by the appellant Sk. Sarjuman and before that he was only familiar with, is beyond comprehension. So, his evidence in chief clearly proved the prosecution case beyond doubt. 35. No doubt an FIR was drawn against unknown person but the P.W. 10 stated in his cross-examination that on the same day he divulged the name of appellant to the investigation officer about their involvement in the monetary transactions. FIR was lodged by P.W. 4 Ramajit Prasama Ghosh who was told by one of the candidates P.W. 9 Kazem Ali Khan that he got the said fake interview letter from an employee of employment exchange of Rampurhat. Non-examination of Deb Kumar Pal who according to P.W. 10 introduced him to the appellant Sk. Sarjuman is not fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as the evidence of P.W. 10 stood the test of cross-examination who is also a victim of cheating. 36. P.W. 11 Sk. Moor Selim another victim of the case identified both the accused Sk. Sarjuman and Ashok Das in the Court who categorically stated that both appellant Ashok Das and Sk. Sarjuman is not fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as the evidence of P.W. 10 stood the test of cross-examination who is also a victim of cheating. 36. P.W. 11 Sk. Moor Selim another victim of the case identified both the accused Sk. Sarjuman and Ashok Das in the Court who categorically stated that both appellant Ashok Das and Sk. Sarjuman assured him that they would arrange a call letter in his farvour for his employment in Calcutta Police. The further claimed have paid Rs. 3,000/- as advance for the call letter and another Rs. 3,000/- for his nephew's call letter to Ashok Das and then after mailing payment of another Rs. 15000/- he got the call letter Exhibit- 20 from appellant Ashok Das and on the strength of said call letter on 10th September, 1987 he appeared for the interview and he was told that the call letter is fake. He had a contract with Ashok Das for a payment of Rs. 18,000/- in total. He made the payment to Ashok Das at Prachi Hotel at Rampurhat in presence of Sk. Sarjuman. The witness claimed that he knew Ashok Das a clerk of Rampurhat Employment Exchange and Ashok Das used to take money from others for arranging call letter for their jobs. 37. There are two other victims of the instant case. They are P.W. 17 Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal and P.W. 22 Tapan Kumar Debangshi. 38. P. W. 17 Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal has clearly stated in his evidence that accused Sk. Sarjuman told him that he would have to pay Rs. 3,000/- for getting a call letter. He further told him that after recruitment he would have to pay him a further sum of Rs, 12,000/- only. Some days before the date of recruitment at Calcutta police Sk. Sarjuman came and took Rs. 3,000/- from his elder brother Sadhan Mondal where he was also present. Five days before the recruitment accused Sk. Sarjuman gave him the identity card of employment and a call letter. On 10th September, 1987 he came to P.T.S., Calcutta for interview but he was not allowed to attend the interview. P.W. 22 Sri Tapan Kumar Debnshi has stated in his evidence that accused Sarjuman told him that if he pays him Rs. 2,000/- then he would arrange for sending his name to Calcutta Police line. On 10th September, 1987 he came to P.T.S., Calcutta for interview but he was not allowed to attend the interview. P.W. 22 Sri Tapan Kumar Debnshi has stated in his evidence that accused Sarjuman told him that if he pays him Rs. 2,000/- then he would arrange for sending his name to Calcutta Police line. One week thereafter accused Sarjuman came to his house at Vill.- Ganpur, P.S.- Saithia, Dist.- Birbhum and gave him two documents. At that time he paid accused Sk. Sarjuman Rs. 2,000/- in cash. Thereafter, he came to Calcutta Police Line for the interview. He reached Calcutta Police Training School on 10th September, 1987 at 12 noon. There he stood in queue. His name was called out and police collected documents from him and stated to him that these were fake documents. 39. Having scrutinized the evidence on record and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and on perusal of the judgment impugned, I find that the learned Trial Court correctly came to a finding on the basis of analysis of the evidence that the appellants accused namely, Ashok Kumar Das and Sk. Sarjuman hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed forgery by issuing fake employment cards and call letters to various candidates including the victim witnesses of the prosecution to cheat the unemployed youths against payment of illegal gratification. Identity of the accused persons in the trial by the prosecution witnesses is not at all in doubt. The registration card and the call letters on the Exhibit lists were examined by the questioned document examiner and examiner's report Exhibits- 43 and 44 corroborate the fact that the documents issued to the prosecution witnesses were suspicious and fake documents. The evidence in its totality are creditworthy, although, there might be minor contradictions in minor details but that cannot be regarded as very material or as positive proof of the mendacity of the witnesses and the case cannot be thrown out on that account. 40. Giving and anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and having sifted the chaff from gains, I hold that the judgment impugned cannot be faulted which in my view in well reasoned, accordingly, the findings of fact holding the appellants accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Das and Sk. Sarjuman guilty of charges and conviction and sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. Sarjuman guilty of charges and conviction and sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for six months each for commission of offence under Section 420/468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC vide judgment dated 26.9.2000 in Case No. 4 of 1987 passed by learned Judge, Calcutta 3rd Special Court deserves to be maintained and hereby affirmed. 41. Learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded for reduction of the sentence to the period suffered by appellants. I am of the view in considering the nature and gravity of the offence that reduction of the sentence cannot be allowed on the score of long lapse of time from the date of conviction, particularly when the sentence imposed by trial Court is only for a period of two years each which is less than the half of the maximum period of sentence prescribed for 7 (seven) years of rigorous imprisonment. 42. Accordingly, the CRA 356 of 2000 (Ashok Kumar Das vs. The State of West Bengal) and CRA 374 of 2000 (Sk. Sarjuman vs. The State of West Bengal) are hereby dismissed and consequently, the appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court to serve out the sentence within two weeks from the date hereof in default learned Trial Court will be at liberty to take coercive step for their production and to do the needful. 43. Let a copy of this judgment together with the LCR be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and needful action. 44. Urgent certified Photostat copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.