JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Cr. appeal No. 12 of 2005; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M. Sahibganj in O.C.R. Case No. 181 of 1991(T.R. No. 369 of 2005); whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466 and 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three years for the charge under section 420 IPC and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence under sections 466 and 468 IPC, has been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of the enquiry report (Ext.4) of the S.D.O. Sahibganj, the Circle Officer, Sahibganj, pursuant to the direction, vide letter no. 282 dated 15.03.1991 (Ext.-2) of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, filed a complaint in the court of the learned C.J.M, Sahibganj against the petitioner, who is revenue Halka Karamchari of Mauza-Hajipur Bisrampur, Diyara, Sahibganj, alleging, inter-alia, therein that the petitioner has committed forgery by making false entry of Jamabandhi no. 123 in register-I recommending for mutation in the name of Ravi Shankar Singh and others with respect to lands under J.B. No. 123 and thereby played fraud upon the circle inspector and the C.O. Sahibganj for obtaining their consent for such forged mutation. He has also made cutting in Register-II where entry of Jamabandhi no. 123 was mentioned in the name of one Krishna Prasad which was found manipulated. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner has manipulated all these cuttings. 4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned judgment on following grounds: (a) As per deposition of PW-3 (complainant) he has no knowledge who has made cutting and entry in the name of Raiyat in Page No. 45 of Register-I. (b) The complainant was also not having any knowledge as to who was the Karamchari in 1975 or Receipt No. 749363 dated 10.10.1975 was of which Jamabandi. (c) No P.Ws have stated who has issued the alleged receipt. (c) No P.Ws have stated who has issued the alleged receipt. (d) As per PW-6 petitioner committed the offence with the help of Ranbijay Singh and Ravi Shankar Singh with the help of Circle Inspector Abul Hasan, however no case was lodged against them. (e) No hand writing expert has been examined in this case so as to verify the cutting in Register-I & II. (g) None of the P.Ws. have stated as to when the illegal entry was made, inasmuch as, whether the same has been made prior to the posting of the petitioner or during his period. (h) Only on the basis that the petitioner was custodian of Register-II he has been convicted but the fact remains that Jamabandi No. 123 has also been mentioned illegally in Register-I, but Register-I was not in the custody of the appellant which itself falsifies the entire allegation? Relying upon the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel submits that the instant application be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court be set aside. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no error in the findings given by the learned trial court, as such, the conviction cannot be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have seen or have knowledge as to who has actually made the illegal entry in Register-I and/or Register-II, inasmuch as, whether the same has been made prior to the posting of the petitioner or during his period. PW-3 (complainant) deposed that he has no knowledge who has made cutting in the name of Raiyat further he has no knowledge who has made Indraj (Entry) in Page No. 45 of Register II even he has no knowledge who was Karamchari in 1975 or Receipt No. 749363 dated 10-10-1975 was of which Jamabandi. According to evidence of PW- 6, the Circle Inspector without doing any local enquiry has mutated the records. PW- 4 and 5 have not supported the case of prosecution. It further transpires that as per page 10 of the learned trial court Judgment, petitioner was liable for cutting/writing in Register-II because the said register was in his custody but did not gave any finding as to when and in who’s handwriting the entry was made. PW- 4 and 5 have not supported the case of prosecution. It further transpires that as per page 10 of the learned trial court Judgment, petitioner was liable for cutting/writing in Register-II because the said register was in his custody but did not gave any finding as to when and in who’s handwriting the entry was made. Further none of the prosecution witness have identified the handwriting of page No. 45 of Register- II and then also the alleged document was not sent to handwriting expert. Further the lower courts failed to consider that Jamabandi No. 123 has also been mentioned in Register I and petitioner was not the custodian of that register. 7. At this stage it is relevant to refer to the finding of the learned trial court who has observed that since petitioner was having custody of Register-II then it will be presumed that he has committed the offence but it failed to appreciate that PW-3 (complainant) had deposed that he has no knowledge who has made cutting in the name of Raiyat and also having no knowledge as to who was the Karamchari in 1975 who issued Receipt No. 749363 dated 10-10-1975. For brevity, necessary portion is quoted herein-below: ^^----------------bl ckr dh iqf"V HkwriwoZ vapykf/kdkjh jktsUæ dqekj us dh pawfd iawth ,oa bykdk deZpkjh ds dLVMh esa jgk blfy, tks Hkh Áfof"V;ka mlds dh xbZ mls gydk deZpkjh vfHkrkHkpæ flUgk }kjk gh fd;k x;k le>k tk,xk------------A** He further observed that none of the prosecution witness has seen this petitioner in cutting the entry. For brevity necessary portion quoted herein-below: ^^----------------;g rF; lR; gS fd fdlh Hkh ekSf[kd lk{kh us vfHk;qDr dks xyr bUnjkt djrs gq, ugha ns[kk gS------------A** 8. After going through the depositions and aforesaid findings, it emerges that admittedly; there was cutting in the official Register of Land Records and the Petitioner being the Halka Karamchari was custodian of the same but there is no eye witness to say as to who has actually made manipulation, inasmuch as, whether the same has been made prior to the posting of the petitioner or during his period. It is true that in these types of cases, normally, it is not possible that any eye witness will be available who has actually seen any accused for doing the offence of cutting and thus, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to send the relevant documents to the handwriting expert so as to verify the genuineness of the charge. Admittedly, the documents were never sent to any expert to testify the handwriting of those documents as to whether the cutting and the entry has been made by the petitioner or not and the petitioner has been convicted merely on presumption that since he was the custodian of the Register, he is presumed to have committed the offence of fraud. The meaning of forgery enunciated under section 463 IPC will be applicable to sections 466 and 468 IPC and if the prosecution failed to prove the offence under 463 consequently the charges under 466 and 468 will not sustain. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record or examine a handwriting expert to prove that it was the petitioner who has forged the document. There is no evidence on record to prove that it was the petitioner who prepared the forged letter. In absence of all this necessary evidences, the petitioner has been convicted which is completely illegal. 9. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, I find it very difficult to rely on the prosecution case. The learned courts did not consider the case of the prosecution on proper appreciation of the evidence, facts and the law. I concede that the prosecution case is not at all free from reasonable doubts. The order of conviction which has been impugned in this revision petition is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner should be given benefit of doubt. Consequently, the judgments of conviction dated 17.03.2005 by the S.D.J.M. Sahibganj and upheld by learned appellate court by order dated 04.05.2006, are hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, instant revision application stands allowed. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.