JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent/C.B. I. 2. Appeal is preferred under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 06.06.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Shillong in Special Case No. 5/1995 convicting the appellant under Section 120-B/468/471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that during the year 1981, ONGC Stores and Purchase Section, Sibsagar had invited quotations for supply of Pneumatic Tool Hose and Flat Canvas Belt 6" width. The suppliers submitted their quotations to ONGC Stores, Sivasagar and the rate of Rs. 54/- per metre of Pneumatic Tool Hose and 3 Braids Dunlop at the rate of Rs. 70/- per metre of Canvas Belt 6" width quoted by M/s. R.A. Enterprise, Dibrugarh, being the lowest was accepted by ONGC, Sivasagar. The ONGC Stores and Purchase Section, Sibsagar placed supply Order No. 108 MS 1055 dated 14.08.1981 under the signature of Mr. M.C. Sharma, Stores and Purchase Officer, ONGC, Sivasagar on M/s. R.A. Enterprise, Dibrugarh for the supply of 555 metres of Pneumatic Tool Hose at the rate of Rs. 54/- per metre for a total Rs. 29,970/- with 2% discount less by Rs. 149.85 inclusive AFT for a payable amount of Rs. 29,820.15/-. The copies of supply orders were sent to Purchase Accounts Section, Inspection Unit, ONGC, Sibsagar. For Canvas Belt another supply Order No. 108 MS 1718 dated 10.11.1981 for the supply of 210 metres at the rate of Rs. 70/- per metre was also placed on the party for total Rs. 14,700/- including AFT under the signature of Mr. Koshal, Stores and Purchase Officer, ONGC, Sibsagar. The copies of supply orders were sent to Purchase Accounts Section, Inspection Unit, ONGC, Sivasagar. The copies of Accounts Section were kept by Mr. RA Shukla, Senior Accounts Assistant. The parties supplied the materials to ONGC and submitted bills raising Rs. 154/- per metre of Pneumatic Hose Tools and Rs. 470/- per metre for Flat Canvas Belt. The copies of supply orders were sent to Purchase Accounts Section, Inspection Unit, ONGC, Sivasagar. The copies of Accounts Section were kept by Mr. RA Shukla, Senior Accounts Assistant. The parties supplied the materials to ONGC and submitted bills raising Rs. 154/- per metre of Pneumatic Hose Tools and Rs. 470/- per metre for Flat Canvas Belt. The bills were received by Mr. R.A. Shukla and Mr. Shukla linked up the party's bill with forged copies of supply orders containing forged signatures of Mr. M.C. Sharma and Mr. A.S. Krishali, Stores and Purchase Officer, prepared payment vouchers and got it signed by Mr. C. Sen, FAO authorizing payment on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 91,452/- and Rs. 98,700/- were paid to the supplier, on the basis of wrong and inflated bills and the Firm received full amount of Rs. 1,22,170/- against Rs. 44,670/- legally due to the Firm and there was an excess payment of Rs. 77,500/-. 4. According to the prosecution, M/s. RA Enterprise in collusion with the employees of Central Stores and Accounts Section, ONGC, Sivasagar got the aforesaid original and genuine supply orders removed and replaced with forged and fictitious supply order, inflating the rates as par with the supplier bills and thereby allowed excess payment against the supply of aforesaid materials, causing pecuniary loss to the ONGC and pecuniary gain to them by manipulating the documents. 5. The case was investigated by the Deputy S.P., CBI, Shillong and during investigation he recorded statement of witnesses and seized certain documents relevant for the case. Further, he obtained specimen signature and handwriting of suspects along with admitted writings and send the same to the handwriting expert and after obtaining the opinion of handwriting experts, finally submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons namely, Mr. R.A. Shukla (Senior Accounts Assistant of ONGC, Sivasagar), Binod Kumar Singhi, Ramesh Kumar Singhi and Gauri Sankar Singhi (All are stated to be partners of M/s. R.A. Enterprise). 6. The accused persons faced the trial and denied the charges. Learned Special Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Section 120-B/471/477-A IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were also framed against accused R.A. Shukla, being the public servant and all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 34 witnesses including the handwriting experts and exhibited bunch of documents. 7. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 34 witnesses including the handwriting experts and exhibited bunch of documents. However, during the pendency of the trial one of the accused Gauri Sankar Singhi expired and the case against him was abated. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court held three accused persons namely, Binod Kumar Singhi, R.A. Shukla and Ramesh Kumar Singhi guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence, the appeal. 8. It may be pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, two accused persons, namely, R.A. Shukla and Binod Kumar Singhi also died and the case against them was abated. Present appeal rests only against the accused, namely, Ramesh Kumar Singhi. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that R.A. Shukla, Senior Accounts Assistant of ONGC abusing his position as public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy with Gauri Sankar Singhi, Binod Kumar Singhi and Ramesh Kumar Singhi, being the owner or otherwise connected with the Firm M/s. RA Enterprise to obtain pecuniary advantage and thereby committed offence of forgery and using false documents as genuine, like supply orders, bank payment vouchers, inspection certificate, tax paid certificate etc. and thereby excess payment was made to M/s. RA Enterprise against the inflated bills. As three of the accused already expired, now we have to confine our finding as regards to Ramesh Kumar Singhi only. 10. Prosecution has examined 18 officials from ONGC and they are- PW. 1 (Harish Chandra Lal), PW. 3 (Mrs. Runiza Begum), PW. 5 (Allauddin Ahmed) PW. 6 (Mohan Chandra Bamati), PW. 7 (Achut Kumar Das), PW. 8 (Habibur Rahman Bora), PW. 9 (Krishna Lal Maini), PW. 10 (Upendra Nath Gogoi), PW. 11 (Numal Chandra Phukan), PW. 12 (Om Prakash Gupta), PW. 14 (Md. Muzid Ahmed), PW. 15 (Chandra Sain), PW. 18 (S.R. Dawan), PW. 19 (Hemendra Singh Bhati), PW. 20 (A.S. Krishali), PW. 21 (Nazlur Rahman), PW. 22 (Sadhu Ram Koshal) and PW. 23 (M.C. Sharma). 11. Other witnesses are Bank officials, i.e. PW 2 and PW 13 and PW 4, PW 16, PW 24 and PW 25 are officials from Tax Department, PW 17 and PW 28 are private individuals, whereas the Handwriting Expert has been examined as PW 34. Rest PW 29, PW 30, PW 31, PW 32 are some officials from the Office of CBI and PW 33 is the Investigating Officer. Rest PW 29, PW 30, PW 31, PW 32 are some officials from the Office of CBI and PW 33 is the Investigating Officer. Evidence of ONGC Officials:- 12. PW. 1 was functioning as Finance & Accounts Officer of ONGC in the accounts section who has stated about the procedure maintained while issuing supply order. PW.1 stated that it is his duty to check the bills and accounts before transaction. Dealing assistant is to prepare the payment order and in this respect exhibit P/1 is the inspection certificate issued by R.A. Shukla valued for Rs. 98,700/- and exhibit P/2 is a supply order in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise for Rs. 29,820/- and exhibit P/3 is also a supply order in the same number and date in favour of the said Firm. Exhibit P/4 is the inspection certificate in favour of the said Firm for value of Rs. 20,628.08/- whereas P/5 is another inspection report with another value of Rs. 60,628.00/- with overwriting. He has also stated that there appears overwriting in value in Exht. P/5 & P/6 and P/7, Goods Receipt Vouchers (GRV) in favour of the said Firm with signature of RA Shukla. He also exhibited one amendment to the earlier supply order (dated 12.08.1981) which was issued on 26.03.1982. Similarly, Ext. P/9 is supply order in favour of the said Firm issued under the signature of RA Shukla for value of Rs. 91,482.90/-. He also exhibited two letters issued by the said Firm vide Ext. P/10 & P/11 addressed to the Supdt. of Taxes, Dibrugarh for issuing Assam Finance Tax Certificate. On the other hand, he admitted his signature in the GRV vide Ext. P/6, P/7. He also admitted that in the supply order (Ext. P/9) along with signature of RA Shukla, his signature was also there (Ext. P.9/4 and 9/5). Again in cheque payment order dated 12.10.1981 vide Ext. P/13 & P/15, he also signed the same along with RA Shukla, however, in Ext. P/16 he has no signature. Other supply orders vide Ext. P/17, P/18 there is no signature of RA Shukla. In this respect, Ext. P/19, a copy of bill of M/s. RA Enterprise bearing signature of RA Shukla and PW. 1 but inspection certificate Ext. P/22 for value of Rs. 14,700/- there is no signature. In another supply order, Ext. P/24 in favour of the said Firm for Rs. P/17, P/18 there is no signature of RA Shukla. In this respect, Ext. P/19, a copy of bill of M/s. RA Enterprise bearing signature of RA Shukla and PW. 1 but inspection certificate Ext. P/22 for value of Rs. 14,700/- there is no signature. In another supply order, Ext. P/24 in favour of the said Firm for Rs. 98,700/- there appear signature of RA Shukla and PW. 1. In cross-examination, he has stated that accounts section is to check the GRV with reference to the correct order and inspected quantity of receipt of materials. Accounts section is not concerned with the amount in GRV and the inspection note because in the inspection report sometime value is not given. It is further stated that after receipt of the invoice/bills from the supplier, the dealing assistant deals with it, deals with relevant GRV supply and inspection report and after due checking he inputs rubber stamps in question for passing the bill and prepares payment order. Thereafter, the invoice/bill/GRV/inspection report/supply order along with payment order put up to the accountant for checking. Thereafter all the papers are submitted to the finance and accounts officer for passing payment. 13. PW. 3, Assistant Gr-II testified about the dispatch of original supply order to the said M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh through registered post with copy to Assistant Executive Engineer, inspection to stores and Purchase Officer, (receipt), stores and Purchase Officer (stock), Store Keeper. In cross examination, he has stated that numbers of copies were sent to them through peon-book but the same are not produced before the court. He has admitted that there is an entry dated 07.11.1981, Ext. P/31 dispatch register regarding M/s. Ramesh Hardwar and Electric Stores, Sivasagar. The parties never directly received any letter from him. 14. PW 5, the Cashier of the ONGC narrating about the procedure of payment finally stated that Ext. P/26, the cheque dated 12.10.1981 amounting to Rs. 62945.96 and Ext. P/27 cheque dated 18.11.1981 amounting for Rs. 98,206.50 were prepared by him in favour of RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and it was signed by the Deputy Director, Finance and Accounts and Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/15 are the cash payment vouchers in favour of RA Enterprise and the same was collected by the party by hand. 62945.96 and Ext. P/27 cheque dated 18.11.1981 amounting for Rs. 98,206.50 were prepared by him in favour of RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and it was signed by the Deputy Director, Finance and Accounts and Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/15 are the cash payment vouchers in favour of RA Enterprise and the same was collected by the party by hand. According to him there are three persons of said firm and he could identify only one, accused Binod Kumar Singhi who used to go to their Office to collect cheques. But he has not specifically mentioned as to who received the cheques and acknowledged the vouchers on behalf of RA Enterprise. 15. The PW 6, Account Assistant, Purchase Section, ONGC has also given similar evidence as that of PW 5 that he prepared the cheques payment order Ext. P/14 in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise but he stated that he could not say who received the cheque on behalf of the Firm rather he stated that he did not know whether the owner or the representative of the Firm is present in the Court today (at the time of trial). 16. PW 7 (Chief Store Keeper) and PW 8 (Store Keeper) are the persons from the Stores Section and both of them have stated about the supply of articles by M/s. RA Enterprise vide Ext. P/6 and Ext. P/7 are the goods received vouchers (in short GRV), acknowledging the receipt of the articles of the Store Section supplied by the Firm and they entered the articles in the relevant registers. Peculiarly enough these two witnesses have stated that they do not know the name of the owner of the Firm RA Enterprise. As regard the accused Binod Kumar Singhi and Ramesh Kumar Singhi it is stated by them that these two persons are the owners of M/s. Ramesh Hardware and Electric Stores, Sivasagar and they used to go to their Office for supplying materials. Although these witnesses have stated about the receipt of the articles from RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and in this respect Ext. P/35, Ext. P/36, Ext. P/37 and Ext. P/38 inspection reports relating to the supply order to M/s. RA Enterprise has been prepared by PW 8 but his evidence is totally silent that the present accused person or any other person of the Firm was associated with M/s. RA Enterprise. P/35, Ext. P/36, Ext. P/37 and Ext. P/38 inspection reports relating to the supply order to M/s. RA Enterprise has been prepared by PW 8 but his evidence is totally silent that the present accused person or any other person of the Firm was associated with M/s. RA Enterprise. In cross-examination, PW 8 has stated that he did not know whether the owners of Ramesh Hardware (three brothers) had any relationship with M/s. RA Enterprise. Their evidence do not reflect about the discrepancy about the rate of the articles supplied. 17. As has been stated by the earlier witnesses that the cheque was issued by the Deputy Director, Finance. The PW 9, the said Deputy Director, Finance and Accounts and PW 10, Superintendent in the Stores and Purchase Section, ONGC narrating all about the procedure as to how supply order was issued and after receipt of the articles, the Cashier prepared the cheque along with the connected documents like payment vouchers, GRV, inspection certificate, parties bill etc. and on such presentation of the cheque, PW 9 used to sign the cheque and accordingly he has admitted about the issuance of cheques vide Ext. P/13 to Ext. P/15, Ext. P/26 to Ext. P/28 under his signature to the said Firm M/s. RA Enterprise from the cheque book, Ext. P/34, Ext. P/39 and Ext. P/40, about the different amount to the Firm at different times. Those cheques were simply exhibited without stating anything about any deformity in any of the documents submitted by the Firm or from the other officials of the ONGC. In his cross-examination, PW 9 stated that he signed the exhibited cheques because he noticed no any defect prior to his signature. 18. It is not understood as to whom to be blamed for such release of money to the supplier Firm as all the concerned persons of the ONGC had passed the bills against the supply order Ext. P/9, on record (purported to be forged one) and even the cheque was issued to the said Firm without any objection from any corner. The long detailed evidence of the concerned witnesses only relates to the procedure of tender and duty of the different Sections at the time of finalizing the bills etc. P/9, on record (purported to be forged one) and even the cheque was issued to the said Firm without any objection from any corner. The long detailed evidence of the concerned witnesses only relates to the procedure of tender and duty of the different Sections at the time of finalizing the bills etc. but none of the witnesses has specifically speak out as to how this Firm M/s. RA Enterprise played foul while procuring the bill amount in higher rate other than that of supply order, whereas the original copy of the supply order vide Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are available in the concerned Sections like Accounts Section, Receipt Section, Stores Section etc. etc. It is also strange to note that none of the witnesses has specifically said as to who is the owner or partner of the M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh which is the moot question to be decided as to who is the owner and partner of the said Firm. 19. So far as the evidence of PW 10 is concerned it is found that he has stated about certain material aspect of the matter which needs to be discussed. It is stated only one control number is allotted in its copy of the particular supply order. As per Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 (copies of original supply order), as the original one was given to the supplier, rate of the articles to be supplied was quoted by M/s. RA Enterprise but Ext. P/9 which is also appeared to be a similar supply order number, is not the document issued from their Office because the Ext. P/9 is not prepared in the manner as Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 and hence Ext. P/9 is stated to be duplicate/fabricated copy of supply order where the value of the materials supplied is shown higher than the Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3. In Ext. P/9 total value of the materials supplied is shown as Rs. 91452.90 whereas in Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 Rs. 29820.15 is shown as accepted rate but he cannot identify the signature in Ext. P/9 purported to have been signed by the Store and Purchase Officer, Mr. M.C. Sharma but in fact the said signature is not belonged to Mr. M.C. Sharma. Thus, he has stated that Ext. 91452.90 whereas in Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 Rs. 29820.15 is shown as accepted rate but he cannot identify the signature in Ext. P/9 purported to have been signed by the Store and Purchase Officer, Mr. M.C. Sharma but in fact the said signature is not belonged to Mr. M.C. Sharma. Thus, he has stated that Ext. P/9 was not prepared by them, as original copy for supplying materials by the party concerned but it was tick marked for FAO. He further tendered his evidence that Ext. P/16, Ext. P/17 and Ext. P/18 are the supply order and the accepted rate of Rs. 70/- per metre as per Ext. P/47(4) the office copy of tender notice but as per the copy of supply order Ext. P/24 and Ext. P/42 the rate of the articles is shown Rs. 470/- per meter instead of Rs. 70/- and the signatures in Ext. P/24 and Ext. P/42 are not similar as appearing those in Ext. P/16 to Ext. P/18 and according to him the bill is not submitted according to the rate quoted by the Firm and Ext. P/24 is not prepared in their Office. He however stated that he pointed out the dissimilarities in comparing Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 with Ext. P/9 and Ext. P/16 to Ext. P/18 and Ext. P/64 and Ext. P/24. In his cross-examination he finally stated that he did not know whether supply order forms were printed and he did not know the owner/partner of M/s. RA Enterprise and did not know the accused Binod Kumar Singhi and Ramesh Kumar Singhi present in the court. 20. In his evidence PW 11 has stated that he used to pass the supply bills after receipt of the copy of supply order, suppliers' bill, GRV, inspection certificate. The copy of supply order is received in Stores Purchase Section and inspection certificate is received from Inspection Unit. He has not mentioned about any irregularity at the time of passing the bill. The Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are supply order copies bearing No. 108 MS/1055 dated 22.08.1981 having value of Rs. 29,820.15 @ Rs. 54/- in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise; that Ext. P/9 is a supply order bearing same number but the rate and total value are different from Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3. The Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are supply order copies bearing No. 108 MS/1055 dated 22.08.1981 having value of Rs. 29,820.15 @ Rs. 54/- in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise; that Ext. P/9 is a supply order bearing same number but the rate and total value are different from Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3. His evidence is far from satisfactory as he noted no objection, despite the differences crept up in different suppliers' bills. He also submitted that all the relevant records pertaining to the bills are placed before the Finance and Account Officer and he used to pass the bills after going through all the documents. It is the responsibility of the F & A 0 to pass the bills and in case of any irregularity, he cannot pass the bill and will send back the bill to the Dealing Assistant to rectify the defect. Peculiarly, he has also stated that he does not know the Firm, namely, M/s. RA Enterprise and who is the owner or partner of the Firm. 21. PW 12, after elaborating all about the procedure about tendering and supply order, has stated that he signed the cheque in question in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise but he did not know the Firm and its owners/partners. He has also stated that the bill was prepared on the basis of the supply order Ext. P/9. Referring to Ext. P/16, Ext. P/17 and Ext. P/18 it is stated that those are copies of supply order No. 1718 which do not bear the stamp impression of the Account Section. It is peculiar to note that none of them pinpointed as to how these different copies of supply order found place on the record and who fabricated such documents! The witnesses simply goes on exhibiting the documents which itself goes against the prosecution case. This witness has replied in cross-examination that except signing one cheque vide Ext. P/17 he has not dealt with any paper relating to the case. According to him FAO has to personally verify that the payment vouchers submitted to him is duly signed by the Account Assistant and the Accountant, before he passed the vouchers for payment. 22. PW 14 stated in his examination-in-chief that Ext. P/9 is the supply order No. 1055 and Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are copies of Ext. P/9; that there is mention of 1% discount in Ext. 22. PW 14 stated in his examination-in-chief that Ext. P/9 is the supply order No. 1055 and Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are copies of Ext. P/9; that there is mention of 1% discount in Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 whereas there is no such mention in Ext. P/9; that Ext. P/6 and Ext. P/7 are GRVs relating to the supply order Ext. P/9; that there is no mention of any amendment in these GRVs; that Ext. P/9 is the bill against supply order Ext. P/2; that the rates does not tally etc. 23. In his evidence PW 15 stated that in 1982 Sri H.C. Lal (PW 1) was the Accountant in the Stores Purchase Accounts Section and accused R.A. Shukla was the Dealing Assistant dealing with the bills of the supplier firms with names starting with the letter 'R'; and that he would be able to identify the writings and signature of R.A. Shukla and H.C. Lal as they worked with him. 24. Evidence of PW 18 relates only to the fact that he issued cheque Ext. P/26 for Rs. 62,945.96 in favour of the M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and Ext. P/13 is the payment voucher and he has also exhibited another cheque Ext. P/17 issued by Senior Deputy Director for Rs. 98,206.50 and Ext. P/15 is the relevant pay order. 25. PW 19 has stated that he has signed the inspection certificates Ext. P/4 and Ext. P/5 and Ext. P/5 is the copy of the F & A 0 and there is an overwriting in the figure in Ext. P/5 as compared to the Ext. P/4 but he cannot say who did the overwriting. He further stated about the goods arrival report Ext. P/36 as per inspection certificates Ext. P/4 and Ext. P/5. 26. So far as the evidence of PW 19 is concerned it confined only to the inspection certificate Ext. P/1 prepared by him but it is stated that the figure and the volume is rewritten by somebody but not by him. Similarly, copies of inspection certificates Ext. P/22 and Ext. P/23 bear his signature but figures do not tally and re-written by somebody else. His evidence is of no help to prosecution as he has not uttered a whisper as to who has manipulated the documents. 27. Similar is the version of PW 20 to PW 23. Similarly, copies of inspection certificates Ext. P/22 and Ext. P/23 bear his signature but figures do not tally and re-written by somebody else. His evidence is of no help to prosecution as he has not uttered a whisper as to who has manipulated the documents. 27. Similar is the version of PW 20 to PW 23. For the sake of brevity we will not discuss their evidence in detail as it is at all not necessary, as their evidence is on the same line as that of earlier witnesses that the Ext. P/9, the supply order is not genuine and a forged one as it is different from original supply order Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 (copies sent to the concerned Sections). It is stated that the rate mentioned in Ext. P/9 is higher than the actual rate quoted in the quotation and mentioned in the Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 and comparative statement Ext. P/46 and the signature in Ext. P/9 is not the genuine signature of Mr. M.C. Sharma. PW 23 in his cross-examination has stated that he knows the Firm M/s. Ramesh Hardware and Electrical Stores of Sivasagar and the three persons from the Firm used to come to their Office and he identified one of the persons present in the court. Thus, he has not indicated any person related to M/s. RA Enterprise. 28. All these witnesses totally fail to say as to who committed the mischief of manipulation of supply order whereas it was their bounden duty to verify the connected documents prior to passing of the bill and issuing of the cheques. The witnesses go on sighing the documents as prepared by the Dealing Assistant without verifying any connected documents. It can be noted that although the original supply order was provided to the supplier but copy of the said order was sent to all the concerned Sections and hence all of them were aware about the supply order. Their evidence is totally silent as to who made such manipulation in respect of item and its value. Evidence of prosecution itself has failed to point out that who were the persons from the Firm or the particular of employee of the Office of the ONGC acted in concert for such illegal gain. Their evidence is totally silent as to who made such manipulation in respect of item and its value. Evidence of prosecution itself has failed to point out that who were the persons from the Firm or the particular of employee of the Office of the ONGC acted in concert for such illegal gain. Simply exhibiting of documents is not at all enough to bring home the guilt of a person unless the complicity of the person concerned is made out, whereas all the witnesses has stated that they do not know who prepared such forged supplier bills. Evidence of Bank Officials: 29. The PW 2, an employee from the State Bank of India has stated that the account payee cheque vide Ext. P/26 dated 12.10.1981 for Rs. 62,945.96, Ext. P/27 dated 18.11.1981 Rs. 98,206.50 and Ext. P/28 dated 19.03.1982 for Rs. 28506.94 issued by the Deputy Director ONGC in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh was presented in their bank for clearing from the Indian Bank and the payment was made in due manner. 30. PW 13 was the Branch Manager of Indian Bank who has specified that Current Account Ext. P/48 was opened on 14.10.1981 by M/s. RA Enterprise Khemka Market, Dibrugarh by one Gauri Sankar as proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise with his signatures therein and the Account No. 202 is opened accordingly in the name of M/s. RA Enterprise which is a proprietorship concern. At the time of account opening A/C No. 202 by Gauri Sankar he was introduced by Binod Kumar Singhi of M/s. Ramesh Hardware and Electric Stores vide Ext. P/48 is the endorsement and vide Ext. P/49 relates to the said account. Subsequently, the aforesaid A/C No. 202 was closed on 19.04.1982 on the prayer made by said Gauri Sankar. On behalf of M/s. RA Enterprise Ext. P/32 to Ext. P/34 the pay slips dated 13.10.1981, 18.11.1981, 29.03.1982 was submitted to their bank in respect of Ext. P/26, Ext. P/27 and Ext. P/28 issued by ONGC drawn in the State Bank of India, ONGC Colony Branch in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise. The said amount was collected through bank clearing and credited to the party's account in the Indian Bank. 31. P/26, Ext. P/27 and Ext. P/28 issued by ONGC drawn in the State Bank of India, ONGC Colony Branch in favour of M/s. RA Enterprise. The said amount was collected through bank clearing and credited to the party's account in the Indian Bank. 31. From the evidence of Bank Officials it emerges that said M/s. RA Enterprise is a proprietorship concern, as said Gauri Sankar single handedly opened the bank and there is no any whisper that there are other three partners. PW 13 has clearly stated that said Binod Kumar Singhi was related to M/s. Ramesh Hardware and Electrical Stores. There is no any whisper about Ramesh Kumar Singhi. Evidence of Tax Officials: 32. The PW 4 is the official from the Office of the Superintendent of Tax, Dibrugarh and he has specified that Ext. P/10, Ext. P/11 and Ext. P/12 letters addressed by M/s. RA Enterprise dated 18.11.1981, 25.08.1981 and 27.03.1982, regarding issue of Assam Finance Tax Certificate to M/s. RA Enterprise was never issued from their office as the initials shown in the documents were not the signatures of any employee of their office neither it bears any receipt number, date etc. and even the seal impression in the aforesaid documents is not belonged to their office. 33. The PW 16 the Superintendent of Taxes has also denied the due execution of the said documents Ext. P/10 to Ext. P/12 from their office neither he signed the same. Other officials from the Office of the Superintendent of Taxes PW 24 and PW 25 has given evidence on the same line that the Ext. P/10 to Ext. P/12 the tax clearance certificate are not issued from their office and the signatures bearing in the documents were not from the persons from their Department. Thus, all the witnesses have totally denied the aforesaid tax clearance documents that were submitted before the ONGC for on behalf of M/s. RA Enterprise. The evidence of private personnel: 34. Evidence of PW 17 and PW 28 relates to another important aspect of the matter. According to PW 17 who is the Accountant of M/s. Naba Archana Machinery Stores, Guwahati dealt with Pneumatic Tools and Flat Canvas Belts and during 1981-1982 used to realize the Assam Finance Tax from the customers, stated that they do not know any firm namely M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh as the said Firm has no dealing with them. According to PW 17 who is the Accountant of M/s. Naba Archana Machinery Stores, Guwahati dealt with Pneumatic Tools and Flat Canvas Belts and during 1981-1982 used to realize the Assam Finance Tax from the customers, stated that they do not know any firm namely M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh as the said Firm has no dealing with them. The evidence of PW 28 Ram Avatar Ladia is more surprising while he says that Ext. P/130, income tax clearance certificate issued to him dated 27.08.1981 and relating to M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh but he could not run the business for want of capital in the year 1981. He never submitted any quotation or bill in the name of M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and he do not know if the accused persons Binod Kumar Singhi, Ramesh Kumar Singhi and Gauri Sankar Singhi who were his family relation did any business in the name of M/s. RA Enterprise. Such evidence of PW 28 is more astounding because as per documents income tax clearance certificate M/s. RA Enterprise stood in his name but the said person was not made an accused in this case. Moreover, in view of the other documentary evidence one Gauri Sankar Singhi opened the account as proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise and there is no answer to this dilemma!! Evidence of Handwriting Expert: 35. So far as the present accused/appellant R.K. Singhi, his specimen signature {Ext. 1(1)} was compared with the disputed writings and signatures in Ext. 163 to Ext. 166, Ext. 2 and Ext. 53. PW 34, the Handwriting Expert in his evidence has stated that the signatures in the aforesaid documents were written by R.K. Singhi. He also opined that the typed script which is not produced before the court has no bearing on the merit of the case. The same witness has also examined the handwritings of M.C. Sharma and A.S. Krishali on the questioned documents and has opined that questioned signature marked Q.4 on Ext. P/9(6) was not written by Sri M.C. Sharma, the writer of specimen signature S. 45 on Ext. P/58 and the contemporaneous signature marked A-2(i) on Ext. P/56(1), A-31 on Ext. 159. PW 34 also opined that questioned signatures marked Q.8 on Ext. P/24 and Q.10 on Ext. P/8(1) were not signed by A.S. Krishali the writer of specimen signature S. 42 on Ext. P/138 and contemporaneous signature marked A-5 on Ext. P/58 and the contemporaneous signature marked A-2(i) on Ext. P/56(1), A-31 on Ext. 159. PW 34 also opined that questioned signatures marked Q.8 on Ext. P/24 and Q.10 on Ext. P/8(1) were not signed by A.S. Krishali the writer of specimen signature S. 42 on Ext. P/138 and contemporaneous signature marked A-5 on Ext. P/160, A-6 on Ext. P/161, A.18 on Ext. P/162 (amendment). PW 34 further opined that questioned writing marked Q.4(1) on Ext. 9(8), Q.15 on Ext. 15(3), Q.53(4) on Ext. 13, Q.41 and Q.42 on Ext. 49, Q.44 and Q.46 on Ext. 48, Q.47 and Q.48 on Ext. 41, Q.49 and Q.50 on Ext. 58 & Ext. 52, Q.66 on Ext. 12 were written by G.S. Singhi, the writer of specimen writing marked S. 48-S. 62 on Exts. 68-81 respectively. 36. In the present case the charges against the accused persons are that R.A. Shukla, Senior Account Assistant of ONGC by abusing his official position as public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with Gauri sankar Singhi, Binod Kumar Singhi and Ramesh Kumar Singhi being the owner or otherwise connected with the Firm M/s. RA Enterprise to obtain pecuniary advantage and thereby committed the offence of cheating, forgery and using false document as genuine, necessary supply orders, cash/bank payment voucher, Inspection Certificate, Assam Finance Tax Paid Certificate, forged quotation and thereby affected excess payment of Rs. 1,45,139.25 to M/s. RA Enterprise. In the instant case allegation of prosecution is in respect of forgery, particularly of following documents: (i) Ext. P/1 : Inspection Certificate (ii) Ext. P/5 : Inspection Certificate (iii) Ext. P/8 : Amendment Order (iv) Ext. P/9 : Supply Order (v) Ext. P/24 : Supply Order Facts relating to invitation of tender/quotation, submission of tenders/quotations by the parties including M/s. RA Enterprise, the rate quoted by the parties including M/s. RA Enterprise and the acceptance of the lowest rate of M/s. RA Enterprise for supply of Pneumatic Tool Hose and Flat Canvas Belt Six Ply 6 Inches Width have been narrated by the relevant witnesses. It is the prosecution case that in view of acceptance of tender/quotation, supply orders were issued to M/s. RA Enterprise for Pneumatic Tool Hose and Flat Canvas Belt Six Ply 6 Inches Width. The evidence relating to the procedure relating to issuance of supply orders aforesaid article has already been dealt with. It is the prosecution case that in view of acceptance of tender/quotation, supply orders were issued to M/s. RA Enterprise for Pneumatic Tool Hose and Flat Canvas Belt Six Ply 6 Inches Width. The evidence relating to the procedure relating to issuance of supply orders aforesaid article has already been dealt with. Though PW 10, PW 20 and PW 23 stated about the procedure for issuance of supply order in the Stores Purchase Section but from the evidence referred above it is not possible to discern the exact procedure in this regard. 37. From the evidence on record as well as also from the statement of accused R.A. Shukla under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it transpires that the supply orders are declared and dispatched from the Stores Purchase Department and copy of supply orders also sent to the Finance and Account Section and the Inspection Unit, Receipt Section, Stock Holder and C & F Section. The Inspection Reports are also prepared in the Inspection Unit of Stores Purchase Section whereas accused R.A. Shukla was working as Senior Account Assistant. As per evidence on record once goods are supplied, arrival report is prepared, GRV and Inspection Report are also prepared in the Stores Purchase Section and copies of documents are sent to Account Section for preparation of bills and payment to suppliers and subsequently, payment order is prepared along with the cheques to the suppliers. 38. Certain material discrepancy emerges from the entire prosecution which is discussed below:- * According to prosecution Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 are the two copies of supply order of MS-/1055 dated 14.08.1981 in respect of supplier Pneumatic Tools Hose whereas supply order Ext. P/9 in respect of same articles marked to the Finance and Account Section is a forged document and Ext. P/9(6) the signature not belongs to Mr. M.C. Sharma (PW 23) and the same has also been proved by the evidence of Expert (PW 34) that the signature of M.C. Sharma does not tally with the questioned documents sent to them. But there is no evidence to show as to who has forged the Ext. P/9 and who has signed the Ext. P/9{vide signature Ext. P/9(6)}. * Similarly there is no evidence as to who has overwritten/manipulated the Ext. P/5, the Inspection Report to change the value of the articles from Rs. 20,628.00 to Rs. 60,628.00. The said Ext. P/5 and Ext. P/9 and who has signed the Ext. P/9{vide signature Ext. P/9(6)}. * Similarly there is no evidence as to who has overwritten/manipulated the Ext. P/5, the Inspection Report to change the value of the articles from Rs. 20,628.00 to Rs. 60,628.00. The said Ext. P/5 and Ext. P/9 received in the Account Section from the Purchase Section. The evidence reveals that Ext. P/19 (Ext. P/20) and Ext. P/21(Ext. P/41) were passed for payment on the basis of Ext. P/9, the copy of supply order meant for F & A 0 Section and Ext. P/35 (Ext. P/38) and Ext. P/36(Ext. P/37) arrival cum Inspection Report, Ext. P/4 (Ext. P/5) Inspection Certificate received from Purchase Section and finally payment orders were made to the supplier by issuing cheques, without any objection from any corner and the entire allegation has been raised only against the person in the Account Section Mr. R.A. Shukla as his signatures appear in Ext. P/9, Ext. P/6 (GRVs), Ext. P/7 (GRV), Ext. P/19, Ext. P/21 (bills) and Ext. P/13 and Ext. P/14 (payment order), whereas the aforesaid documents bear the signatures of other officials of ONGC like PW 1, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 15. In that view of the matter it can also be held that those witnesses might be privy to the forgery of said documents but prosecution has not depict the story in otherwise putting all the blames to one person of the office, i.e., R.A. Shukla (who however died during the pendency of the appeal). Surprisingly, the prosecuting agency has not obtained any handwritings and signatures of those persons for comparing their signatures with the questioned documents. * Although it is the allegation of prosecution that Ext. P/16, Ext. P/17, Ext. P/18 are the copies of the supply order No. 108 MS/1718 whereas the supply order Ext. P/24 at enhanced rate compared to the genuine supply order but there is no evidence to establish as to who forged Ext. P/24 and who has overwritten in Ext. P/1 (Inspection Certificate). The said documents were received in the Account Section from the Purchase Section and the bills Ext. P/42(Ext. P/43) was passed for payment on the basis of Ext. P/24 (copy of supply order) meant for F & A0 Section and Ext. P/1, Ext. P/25 (GRV) and the said documents routed through all the persons concerned without any objection. The said documents were received in the Account Section from the Purchase Section and the bills Ext. P/42(Ext. P/43) was passed for payment on the basis of Ext. P/24 (copy of supply order) meant for F & A0 Section and Ext. P/1, Ext. P/25 (GRV) and the said documents routed through all the persons concerned without any objection. Now the witnesses have chanting the word "forged" documents but there is no any whisper as to who forged those documents whereas the disputed documents like Ext. P/1, Ext. P/24, Ext. P/25, Ext. P/15 bears the signatures of officials of ONGC, i.e., PW 1, PW 5 and PW 19 who signed on being satisfied therewith. * It is the evidence of PW 1, PW 10, PW 11, PW 14, PW 20 and PW 23 they have stated about the amended supply order Ext. P/8 dated 26.03.1982 to the supply order No. 108 MS/1055 dated 12.08.1981 and has stated that the said document is a forged document as signature appearing thereon Ext. P/8(1) is not the signature of M.C. Sharma. Their evidence again inconsistent when it is said by PW 20 that after issuance of supply order there cannot be any amendment in respect of rate of the materials whereas Ext. P/8 in fact relates to amendment of date of delivery whereby date of delivery has been extended. Thus, Ext. P/8 has nothing to do with the amendment of rate of supply order. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the forgery in respect of Ext. P/8(1) has been made by any of the accused persons. * Although I/O in his statement has stated that accused persons are partners of M/s. RA Enterprise but no document has been seized or produced to prove the same, neither has he verified the A/C Account No. 202 stood in the name of M/s. RA Enterprise. I/O has also admitted in cross-examination that M/s. RA Enterprise is a proprietorship concern which is again contradictory. * Bill on behalf of M/s. RA Enterprise was filed by Gauri Sankar Singhi who also withdrawn the cheque for and on behalf of the said Firm and deposited the same in A/C Account No. 202. 39. The crucial question would arise whether M/s. RA Enterprise is a proprietorship firm and if so who is the proprietor? * Bill on behalf of M/s. RA Enterprise was filed by Gauri Sankar Singhi who also withdrawn the cheque for and on behalf of the said Firm and deposited the same in A/C Account No. 202. 39. The crucial question would arise whether M/s. RA Enterprise is a proprietorship firm and if so who is the proprietor? and if it is a partnership concern, who are the partners of the Firm and whether the present accused Ramesh Kumar Singhi is associated with the said Firm in any manner? * The aforesaid question also remains undecided in this case rather there is serious inconsistency in the evidence as to who is the proprietor or partner of the said Firm. None of the witnesses stated about the names of the persons who represented M/s. RA Enterprise. PW 7, PW 8, PW 10, PW 11, PW 12 and PW 23 have stated that they do not know the Firm M/s. RA Enterprise as to who are the owners of the Firm. As regard the accused Ramesh Kumar Singhi and Binod Kumar Singhi it is stated that they are suppliers from M/s. Ramesh Hardware. * The PW 8 has stated that three persons represent the Firm M/s. Ramesh Hardware and he identified two of them namely, Binod Kumar Singhi and Ramesh Kumar Singhi. He, however, do not know whether the said persons have any relationship with M/s. RA Enterprise. His evidence totally belied the prosecution case. * Peculiar to note that PW 28-R.A Ladia stated himself to be the proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and he has also admitted that Ext. P/130 Income Tax Clearance Certificate is issued to him in respect of the said Firm as on 27.08.1981, whereas the supply order is dated 14.08.1981 as per Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/3 and his statement that although he obtained the Income Tax Clearance Certificate but was not doing any business of the said Firm at the relevant time remains under serious clouds. The Income Tax Officer, PW 27 admitted about issuance of Income Tax Clearance Certificate, Ext. P/130 in the name of above R.A. Ladia (PW 25) as proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh. The Income Tax Officer, PW 27 admitted about issuance of Income Tax Clearance Certificate, Ext. P/130 in the name of above R.A. Ladia (PW 25) as proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh. * The evidence of PW 17 who dealt with the business of Pneumatic Tools and Flat Canvas Belt makes the matter more clumsy while he stated that as per their record, they have never supplied such articles to M/s. RA Enterprise, Dibrugarh and he stated that there is no such Firm at Dibrugarh. * The evidence of PW 13 the Branch Manager, Indian Bank is more disturbing when he says that A/C Account No. 202 to M/s. RA Enterprise, stood in the name of M/s. RA Enterprise was opened by accused Gauri Sankar as proprietor of the Firm meaning thereby it is not a partnership firm. One Binod Kumar Singhi of M/s. Ramesh Hardware, Sivasagar was the introducer of said Gauri Sankar and there is no any whisper as about the name of the present accused/appellant as to how he is connected/associated with the aforesaid Firm. The evidence of Bank Officer also reveals that the various pay slips were issued in the name of Gauri Sankar and the present accused/appellant is nowhere in the picture. * From the evidence of PW 4, PW 16, PW 24 and PW 25 who have exhibited the documents like Ext. P/10 to Ext. P/12 it reveals that those letters were written by the proprietor of M/s. RA Enterprise to the Superintendent of Taxes, whereas the other witnesses from the Tax Department have also stated that no such document was issued from their office concerned. The evidence of PW 5 to PW 8 and PW 10 and PW 11 on the other hand reveals that although they have stated about the making of supply order to M/s. RA Enterprise but they failed to identify the Firm and the owner and partner of the Firm. So far as the present accused concerned it is stated that they do not know whether the present accused persons were associated with M/s. RA Enterprise but they know that the accused persons had a firm in the name of M/s. Ramesh Hardware and Electrical Stores at Sivasagar town and who used to come to their office in connection with the bills. Thus, there is no any conclusive evidence as to whether M/s. RA Enterprise is a proprietorship firm or a partnership firm and the present accused petitioner was any way associated with the Firm. 40. The entire evidence on record is highly insufficient to establish that the present accused person Ramesh Kumar Singhi was in any manner associated with the aforesaid Firm M/s. M Enterprise rather it has been made out that he was a person from M/s. Ramesh Hardware. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also they have stated that they were not at all associated with M/s. RA Enterprise but they have another firm namely, M/s. Ramesh Hardware, Sivasagar which also finds support by prosecution evidence. PW 3 from the relevant register has stated that he despatched certain supply order to M/s. Ramesh Hardware on 07.11.1981. In that context, the presence of the accused person (being the partner of said Firm) in the office of ONGC appears to be normal affair. 41. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kamal Agarwal has referred and relied upon the decision of State vs Itialini and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 253 where the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the nature and scope and the extent of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A/120B IPC and laid down the law as regard the conspiracy. The paragraph 583(7) of the decision is reproduce below: "A charge of conspiracy may cause prejudice the accused because it forces them to a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. The prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also the agreement. In charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in conviction of all which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence the prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of alleged conspirators. There is always difficulty in pressing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy" 42. There is always difficulty in pressing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy" 42. In another decision referred by the learned counsel for the appellant in Kehar Singh vs State (Delhi Admn) (1988) 3 SCC 609 it has been held that "gist of offence of conspiracy then lies nor in doing the act or affecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor any inciting others to do them but in forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Mere knowledge of the agreement of the plan per se is not enough." 43. The same principle is followed in the subsequent decisions rendered in Esher Singh vs State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585 , K.R. Purusuthaman vs State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 621, Subramaniam Swami vs A. Raja (2012) 9 SCC 257 . In the light of the above decisions when we appreciate the evidence adduced by prosecution it would clearly show that the prosecution has failed to prove any such agreement between R.A. Shukla with that of other accused persons, for doing an illegal act or for doing an act by illegal means, which is sin-qua-non to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy. Even there may not be direct evidence to prove such conspiracy but in the present case there is no any incriminating evidence as against the present accused/appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge of conspiracy against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 44. So far as the other charges concerned under Sections 468/471 IPC the prosecution is to prove the making of forged documents as defined under Section 464 IPC. The Section 468 IPC provides punishment of forgery for the purpose of cheating. On the other hand Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonesty uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged documents shall be punished in the manner as he has forged such documents. 45. The Section 468 IPC provides punishment of forgery for the purpose of cheating. On the other hand Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonesty uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged documents shall be punished in the manner as he has forged such documents. 45. Now turning to the present case as has been discussed above in order to prove the allegation against the accused/appellant it is to be established that the present accused/appellant has fraudulently uses the said documents relating to M/s. RA Enterprise as genuine for the purpose of cheating knowing fully well that Ext. P/9, Ext. P/24 are forged documents and cutting and overwriting in the value of the articles in supply order was done with his knowledge and connivance with the other partners of the Firm and the officials of the ONGC. 46. The prosecution in the present case has failed to lead evidence that the present accused person along with others used the forged documents as genuine despite knowing the same to be forged to prove the offence under Section 471 IPC. Scattered evidence here and there that the said Firm was represented by three partners without there being any specific evidence to establish or suggest the complicity of the appellant with the offence charged. The prosecution itself has failed to establish by oral or documentary evidence regarding the status of M/s. RA Enterprise. Rather it reveals that the accused/appellant Ramesh Kumar Singhi was neither the proprietor nor in any manner connected with M/s. RA Enterprise, Dirbugarh. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and same never shift and only in case of statutory presumption the burden shift on proof of statutory presumption. 47. The learned trial court has also failed to put the relevant question independently to the accused/appellant while examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regard the signature in some documents and other incriminating circumstances and in view of the above findings and matters on record the evidence of Expert, PW 34 regarding some signature on some disputed documents will not enough to embrace the accused with the offence charged. A conviction cannot rest only on the basis of Handwriting Expert's evidence, as such evidence is not at all conclusive and there must be some supporting evidence to prove the handwriting and other incriminating circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Agarwal has relied upon the following decisions to support the proposition of law that independent evidence is necessary to support the Expert evidence: (i) AIR 1964 SC 529 , Sashi Kumar Benerjee and Others vs Subodh Kumar Benerjee. (ii) AIR 1975 SC 290 , Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others. (iii) (2017) SCC 817 SPS Rathore vs CBI. (iv) 2004 2 GLR 435 Subhash Ch. Sharma vs State of Assam. (v) Judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 in Cri.A.313/2013, Sri Jagjiban Chakraborty vs CBI. Referring to the aforesaid decisions it has been submitted that in the instant case no conviction can be recorded only on the basis of the opinion of handwriting as evidence nowhere proves that the documents Ext. P/9, Ext. P/24 and signatures thereon were forged by the accused person and the overwriting on Ext. P/1 and Ext. P/5 was made by the accused person. In the given case questioned handwriting and admitted handwriting and the signatures have not been proved by any of the witnesses in accordance with Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act. 48. In the decision referred above the Hon'ble Apex Court discussing about the evidence of Expert it has been held that it will be extremely hazardous to condemn the accused merely on the strength of evidence of Expert as it is only an opinion evidence and it is unsafe to base conviction solely on the expert opinion without substantive corroboration. In this context we may also gainfully refer to the decisions of Ramchandra vs U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 , AIR 1963 SC 1728 , Iswari Prasad Mishra vs Md. Isha, AIR 1967 SC 1326 Fakaruddin vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1091 Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab and (2003) 1 SCC Alamgir vs State (NCT) wherein it has been held that uncorroborated evidence of Handwriting Expert is extremely weak type of evidence, we should not be relied either to conviction or for acquittal and it can rarely ever take place the substantive evidence. 49. 49. In view of the legal proposition and the reasons and discussion above this Court is of opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges as against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has misconstrued the evidence on record and failed to appreciate the entire evidence in proper perspective of law and facts which has rendered the order of conviction and sentence unsustainable. 50. In the result, appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the accused person is set at liberty forthwith. 51. Return the LCR.