ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. This criminal revision petition was originally preferred by the petitioner-Mukteshwar Singh Choudhary against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr. Appeal No.164 of 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Dhanbad. During the pendency of the revision he died and on an application filed by his son Mahendar Singh Choudhary, who was substituted vide order of this Court dated 14.06.2024. 2. The President-Moonidih Project Co-operative Credit Society Limited is the informant of the case, who had lodged the FIR on 20.10.2005 against Ashok Das, President, Moonidih Project Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Mukteshwar Singh Choudhary, Secretary, Moonidih Project Cooperative Credit Society Limited, P.N. Singh, Treasurer, Moonidih Project Cooperative Credit Society Limited. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.06.2002, the named three accused persons prepared a forged application on behalf of chain man, Kali Pad Bauri for drawing a loan of Rs.15,000/-from the society on the ground of medical treatment and daughter’s marriage. When Kali Pad Bauri after his retirement, came to get his no dues certificate, then he came to know that some imposter had drawn loan in his name by committing forgery of his signature. It transpired that Ashok Das had submitted an application of loan for Rs.15,000/-and after taking the loan, the same had been refunded in August, 2004 when show cause was served to Ashok Das. 4. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 5. Altogether eleven witnesses were examined and Exhibit 1 – 13 were adduced into evidence on behalf of prosecution. Learned trial court convicted all the three accused persons, in Criminal Appeal the judgment of conviction was affirmed against Ashok Das and this petitioner, whereas P.N. Singh was acquitted of the charges. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the main allegation is directed against Ashok Das that he had submitted forged application for drawing loan on behalf of Kali Pad Bauri and the said amount was drawn by him and credited into his Account. The receipt was signed by Ashok Das. It is further submitted that the amount was legally drawn as loan has been returned by Ashok Das in 2004. 7. The receipt was signed by Ashok Das. It is further submitted that the amount was legally drawn as loan has been returned by Ashok Das in 2004. 7. The only allegation against the petitioner is that at the relevant time, he was Secretary, Moonidih Project Co-operative Credit Society Limited and only material against him is his signature over the voucher for payment of the amount to Kali Pad Bauri. With regard to Exhibit 5, it is argued that it is Auditor’s report regarding withdrawal of the loan amount illegally by Ashok Das. In the said report, complicity of this petitioner has come-up. However, Auditor has not been examined on behalf of prosecution and general allegation has been levelled against him. With regard to Exhibit 6, it is submitted that it is paid voucher form on which payment of Rs.15,000/-has been made signed by Kali Pad Bauri and Ashok Das receiving the amount, claiming himself to be authorized on behalf of Kali Pad Bauri. On this voucher, the original petitioner-Mukteshwar Singh Choudhary had put an endorsement completely unaware the design of Ashok Das. 8. It is argued on behalf of State that except for Exhibit 6, there is no documentary evidence regarding the complicity of this petitioner in the offence. It is also admitted that there is no oral evidence against him. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is apparent that the main accused person in the present case was Ashok Das, who had submitted a forged application for withdrawing the loan on behalf of one Kali Pad Bouri and by making false representation, withdrew the amount. Charge under Section 34 or 120B I.P.C of the Indian Penal Code has not been framed to make this Petitioner vicariously liable for the act of Ashok Das. 10. Therefore, the matter for consideration is whether prosecution has succeeded to prove the charge individually against this petitioner. In order to prove the charge of forgery, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the person accused of the offence made the false document and that the present accused dishonestly or fraudulently made a false document with intent to cause damage to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person, or to part with property. Making of a false document also defines under Section 464 of the IPC which reads as under: 464. Making a false document.—[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.] 11. From the above stated settled position of law, it is evident that there was no allegation against the original petitioner that he made any false document. The only material against him is that he had signed over Exhibit 6 which was a payment voucher purported to be drawn on behalf of Kali Pad Bauri, but payment was made to Ashok Das as he was authorized to receive the said amount by the letter of authority. This Court is of the view that mere signing a voucher during course of official business, will not amount to the offence of forgery unless there is material on record to show that he had conspired with the principal accused in the said withdrawal. This Court is of the view that mere signing a voucher during course of official business, will not amount to the offence of forgery unless there is material on record to show that he had conspired with the principal accused in the said withdrawal. There is no allegation against this petitioner that he was in any way directly or indirectly beneficiary of the offence. 12. Similarly, to establish offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no allegation of impersonation against this petitioner therefore, Section 419 of the IPC will not be made out and since monitory transaction took place therefore, offence under Section 420 of the IPC will also not be valid against this petitioner. Under the circumstance, the offence charged is not sustainable and accordingly the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside. Criminal Revision petition is allowed.