JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.1745/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Bagalkot, dated 31/8/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 418, 120(b) and 511 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2. Parties are referred to their rankings before the Court below for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant has filed the complaint before the Court below stating that he is the resident of Bagalkot and he is the joint owner of the house property bearing CTS No.375/1 and 375/2 of Ward No.4 and CTS No.36, 37 and 38 of Ward No.5 of Bagalkot Town. All these properties have been submerged under the Upper Krishna project. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of eldest brother of the complainant late Gururaj Athani. The submerged properties are the jointly owned by the complainant-Anant Krishtacharya Athani and Lila G.Athani and the father of Accused Nos.1 to 3 Gururaj Athani. The complainant along with Anant Athani and Lila Athani have executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.1 on 28/4/2000 to facilitate him to represent the complainant and two others before the Court to receive the compensation amount. Subsequently, accused No.1 started to behave in different way and his attitude towards the complainant and two others was observed to be suspicious and hence, they got cancel led the power of attorney and issued notice to accused No.1 on 9/2/2001. Inspite of the cancellation of the power of attorney, accused No.1 cheated the complainant to cause loss to him by creating false documents and other documents connived with accused No.1, conspired to knock of the property. Accused No.1 has made a false document of relinquishment deed, showing the same as it has been executed jointly by the complainant, Anant K.Athani and Li la G.Athani on 19/12/2000. The complainant and two others have not executed such deed nor they have signed the documents. They were also not at al l present on 19/12/2000 at Bagalkot. The signatures found on the said relinquishment deed is not that of the complainant, Anant K.Athani and Li la G.Athani. Accused No.1 himself has managed to make the signatures with the help of some other persons. They were also not at al l present on 19/12/2000 at Bagalkot. The signatures found on the said relinquishment deed is not that of the complainant, Anant K.Athani and Li la G.Athani. Accused No.1 himself has managed to make the signatures with the help of some other persons. Accused No.1 has used the said documents as genuine and submitted the same to the Bagalkot Town Development Authority and made the said authority to believe the said documents to be genuine and as a result, the Authority has al lotted a plot No.29 in Navanagar Sector No.14 to accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have created another false document. In that, they have prepared an agreement showing that accused No.1 his brother and sister-in-law have purchased the same and the same was made on 31/7/2001 with dishonestly induced the notary at Bagalkot to attest the said document. The accused have used the said created documents with the B.T.D.A. authorities and authorities have allotted the plot No.A-581 and A-582 in Sector No.28 to accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were responsible to create the false documents in connivance of accused Nos.4 and 5. Both accused Nos.4 and 5 are the advocates at Bagalkot. Accused No.4 had knowledge and acquainted with the complainant, Anant Athani and Smt. Lila G.Athani, though they were not present and they have not signed the documents, but, he has endorsed on the document as he knows the executants. Based on the complaint, the Court below have referred the matter for investigation under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and Investigating Officer has filed false ‘B’ report and the same has been challenged and the complainant has been examined. The Court below has taken cognizance for the offences alleged against them. Thereafter, summons was issued and secured the accused persons, but, they did not plead guilty and thereafter, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined notary as PW-2, examined PWs.3 and 4 who are another brother and sister-in-law and got marked Exs.P1 to P10(a)to(f ). The accused did not choose to lead any evidence. 4. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and closure of the evidence, the Court below heard both the counsels and acquitted the accused persons for the charges leveled against them. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence. 4. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and closure of the evidence, the Court below heard both the counsels and acquitted the accused persons for the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed and grounds urged in the appeal is that the Court below has erroneously acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 and committed an error and failed to take note of the fact that Exs.P9 and 10 are produced at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Authority. Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the relinquishment deed is not admissible in evidence as it is not registered and question was whether the said documents was concocted or not and that has not been considered by the trial Court in proper perspective and the very conclusion itself is wrong conclusion. The trial Court also failed to take note of the fact that the alleged documents came into existence on 19/2/2010 and erroneously comes to the conclusion that PW-1 was in cordial relationship with the accused at that time and failed to take note of the fact that Exs.P9 and P10 contains the forged signatures. Specifically, PW-1 and PW-4 have categorically deposed that they have not signed the documents Exs.P9 and 10. When such being the case, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the accused persons have forged the signatures since they only produced the documents and they are the beneficiaries of the said documents and the same has not been properly appreciated. The ground urged by the complainant is that the Court below has wrongly observed that the evidence of PW-2 is no help to the complainant and failed to take note of the fact that based on Exs.P9 and P10, accused Nos.1 to 3 got allotted the property in their respective names. Hence, even though the offences alleged against the accused persons are proved and the very act of accused Nos.1 to 3 attracts the offences alleged against them, erroneously acquitted. 5. The appellant’s counsel did not choose to appear and argue the case on merits even several opportunities were given to him. Hence, even though the offences alleged against the accused persons are proved and the very act of accused Nos.1 to 3 attracts the offences alleged against them, erroneously acquitted. 5. The appellant’s counsel did not choose to appear and argue the case on merits even several opportunities were given to him. The counsel for the accused also did not address the arguments at the first instance and thereafter, an application is filed for addressing the arguments and this Court has given an opportunity to address the arguments. Heard the arguments of the accused counsel and on that day also, appellant’s counsel did not turn up and hence, the matter is reserved for judgment. 6. Counsel appearing for the accused in his arguments he vehemently contended that the Court below rightly appreciated the documents available before the Court below and given the reasoning while acquitting the accused and grounds urged in the appeal memo also not sustainable in the eye of law. The Court below has rightly comes to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved the offence of forgery and conspiracy and further Court below comes to the conclusion that al l of them have received the compensation amount and also the sites which are allotted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 3 have been cancelled and they did not get any benefit. Further, the Court below has rightly comes to the conclusion that forgery has not been proved that too at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3. When such being the case, and there are no any material before the Court to reverse the findings of the trial Court to comes to other conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence. The other contention that the offence of forgery cannot be presumed unless the same has been proved by adducing cogent evidence and hence, the Court below rightly acquitted the accused persons. 7. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the accused and also on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal memo, this Court has to examine whether the Court below has to reappreciate the evidence available before the Court since this Court is the First Appellate Court and having ample powers to reconsider and reappreciate the evidence available on record, both the oral and documentary evidence and also the question of law. Having considered the same, this Court has to examine whether the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. Having considered the grounds and also the arguments of the counsel for the accused and considering the materials available on record, the complainant himself has been examined as PW-1 and also examined notary as PW-2 and examined his brother as PW-3 who has not supported the case of the prosecution and also got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P10(a)to(f) and also relied upon the evidence of his sister-in-law who has been examined as PW-4. 8. I have given an anxious consideration to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.1– complainant who has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence and PW-4 is also another witness in support of the complainant has supported the case of the complainant and both of them have deposed that they have not executed the documents Exs.P9 and 10 and categorically deposed that the signatures available on documents Exs.P9 and 10 are not belong to them. The complainant also examined his another brother as PW-3 and he did not support the case of the complainant and he completely turned hostile and he was cross examined. He has denied the suggestions in the cross examination that he has not executed the documents Exs.P9 and 10. 9. Now, the evidence remains before the Court is PWs-1, 2 and 4. Before considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, I would like to consider the evidence of PW-2. PW-2 is the notary who attested the documents. He categorically says that he was not having any acquaintance with the executants. But, he claims that the Advocate has identified the executants. Hence, the evidence of PW-2 is also not helpful to the complainant. If he is having acquaintance with the complainant, then the evidence of PW-2 would have helped the complainant. Now, the evidence remains is PWs.1 and 4 and no doubt both of them have deposed before the Court that the signatures available on Ex.P9 and 10 which are marked not belong to them. It has to be noted that they have not disputed the fact that the property was submerged which belongs to their family and also not disputed the fact that they have received the compensation. Further, they admit that they have executed the power of attorney in favour of accused No.1. It has to be noted that they have not disputed the fact that the property was submerged which belongs to their family and also not disputed the fact that they have received the compensation. Further, they admit that they have executed the power of attorney in favour of accused No.1. But, PW-1 categorically says that power of attorney was misused and attitude of accused No.1 was changed subsequently and he got issued notice and cancelled the power of attorney. The said fact is also not in dispute. The main contention of PWs.-1 and 4 that in order to knock of the property, they have created Exs.P9 and 10 and forged the signatures. Throughout in the cross examination, they have withstood the cross examination and the Court below while acquitting the accused has comes to the conclusion that the documents which allegedly have been executed by PWs.1 and 4 are not the registered documents and hence, the same is not admissible in evidence. Such a conclusion is erroneous conclusion, whether the document is registered or unregistered is immaterial. The only question before the Court below is whether the signatures of PWs.1 and 4 have forged or not and material emerged in the evidence. It is the contention of the accused persons that those documents are executed by PWs.1, 3 and 4 and throughout in the cross examination, it is suggested that the signatures are belongs to PWs.-1, 3 and 4 and I have already pointed out that PW-3 did not dispute the same. Only dispute is by PWs-1 and 4. The main contention of PWs.-1 and 4 that the signatures have been forged and the documents have been produced by accused Nos.1 to 3 before the authority. The said fact also not been disputed by the accused persons and the said documents are produced before the authority. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P9 and 10 originals are summoned from the authority and the same has been got marked. The Court below also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that PWs.1 and 4 have not proved the fact of the forgery at the instance of the accused persons. The trial Court ought to have been considered the fact that those documents are produced at the instance of the accused persons. There is no dispute that those documents are not tendered by the accused persons before the authority. The trial Court ought to have been considered the fact that those documents are produced at the instance of the accused persons. There is no dispute that those documents are not tendered by the accused persons before the authority. Based on the production of those documents, the properties are allotted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same is also not in dispute. Further, it is admitted that the properties which are allotted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 3 are subsequently cancel led and they did not get the benefit. But, the question is whether the allegation of forgery and conspiracy and with an intention to cheat PWs.-1 and 4, those documents are come into existence. It is important to note that when the complainant i.e. PWs-1 and 4 have categorically says that those documents are forged and signatures are not belong to them and when the accused persons throughout in their cross examination denied the said al legation and contends that those documents are executed by PWs.1 and 4, the complainant ought to have been sent the said documents for handwriting experts and the same has not been done. The accused persons also taken a specific defence that those signatures belong to the complainant and PW-4 and when such defence is taken, the burden is on the complainant to prove that those signatures are forged signatures and in order to prove the said contention, the only course open to the complainant is to send the documents to the hand writing experts and the same has not been done. Further, important to note that no doubt the Court can compare the signatures, i.e admitted signatures and disputed signatures, exercising the powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and in a criminal case that too when the heinous offence of forgery has been alleged against the accused person, the Court only by comparing the signatures invoking Section 73 of the Evidence Act cannot act as a expert and comes to a conclusion that the signatures are forged signatures. 10. The Court below held when the counsel for accused relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1140 between O.Bharathan Vs. 10. The Court below held when the counsel for accused relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1140 between O.Bharathan Vs. K.Sudhakarn and another wherein it is held that “…..without the aid of an expert of the evidence of persons conversant with the disputed signatures, the approach made by the High Court was not an conformity with the spirit of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.” Further observed that ‘…When there is a dispute regarding the signature of a person, it has to be ascertained with the aid of expert or evidence of a person conversant with disputed signature” 11. In the case on hand also, when there is a dispute with regard to the signatures, the complainant ought to have sent the documents to ascertain whether those signatures are forged or not or those signatures are of PW1 and PW4 since they have disputed and accused persons have contended that the same belongs to PW1 and PW4 with the aid of experts or evidence of persons conversant with disputed signature and the same has not been done. In the absence of scientific material before the Court with regard to the forgery, the Court cannot comes to the conclusion that the signatures are forged signatures and there is no any authenticated and scientific evidence before the Court to comes to a conclusion that those signatures are forged signatures. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed an error in acquitting the accused persons in the absence of scientific material evidence before the Court that those disputed signatures are forged signatures. I have already pointed out that other conclusion arrived by the Court below that document is not registered and the same is inadmissible is erroneous approach of the trial Court. But, it is specifically pleaded in the complaint as well as in the evidence that the signatures are forged. But, in one breath, the complainant says that those signatures are forged at the instance of some other persons and anyhow, I have already pointed out that accused Nos.1 to 3 have got the benefit by producing those documents before the authority and they themselves have tendered the documents before the Authority and the same has not been disputed and hence, no doubt the Court can presume that the documents which are disputed, came into existence at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3. But, no material before the Court to show that those signatures are forged signatures. I have already pointed out that in the absence of scientific evidence as well as the expert’s evidence that those signatures are forged signatures, the complainant failed to send the documents to the hand writing experts and get the report from the experts to prove the fact that those signatures are forged signatures. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused persons. Hence, I do not find any reasons to comes to other conclusion to reverse the judgment of the Court below. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.