JUDGMENT : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 passed st by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case C No.151 /03 affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Kamrup at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.11/2008. 3. The allegation brought against the petitioner is that during the period 1993-94 at Barpeta Road under Barpeta Police Station, he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Tapan Kanti Das, the Manager Incharge of Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The present petitioner had allegedly filed some false and forged medical bills before the Insurance Company and managed to squeeze out an amount of ?14,000/-. 4. The charge sheet was filed against both the petitioner and Tapan Kanti Das. But subsequently Tapan Kanti Das was discharged by the court. The trial proceeded against the present petitioner for committing offences under Sections 420 /468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 5. The prosecution side examined as many as 12 witnesses in order to prove the offences against the present petitioner. At the end of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 420 /468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . For each of the offences, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6(six) months and to pay fine of ?2,000/- with default stipulations. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the said judgment. 7. I have gone through both the judgments. 8. The first prosecution witness Dibakar Sarma, of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, explained as to how a Medi-claim Policy can be successfully encashed. Ext.1 is the Medi-claim Policy of the present petitioner. According to Mr. Sarma, the then Manager Tapan Kanti Das had cleared the claim form of the petitioner. The witness Dr. S. Bora who was working for Oriental Insurance Company Limited has stated in his evidence that he had studied the documents submitted by the petitioner. 9. The witness Badal Kr. Ext.1 is the Medi-claim Policy of the present petitioner. According to Mr. Sarma, the then Manager Tapan Kanti Das had cleared the claim form of the petitioner. The witness Dr. S. Bora who was working for Oriental Insurance Company Limited has stated in his evidence that he had studied the documents submitted by the petitioner. 9. The witness Badal Kr. Sutradhar of Oriental Insurance Company Limited has stated in his evidence that the petitioner was paying the annual premium of Rs.855/- for the Medi-claim policy. 10. The witness Dinesh Ch. Baruah of Bank of India, Fancy Bazar Branch has stated in his evidence that the cheque of Rs.14,000/- was deposited in the said Bank where the petitioner had maintained his account. 11. The witness Badal Kanti Dutta was an employee of Nightangle Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Dispur, Ganeshguri. He had brought the Admission Register of the Hospital for the st st period of 1 April, 1993 to 31 March, 1994. He has stated that during this period, no patient by the name of Kailash Ch. Jain was admitted in the Hospital. 12. The evidence of these witnesses clearly show that the petitioner Kailash Ch. Jain was not admitted at Nightangle Hospital. But the documents which he had relied upon show that he was under the treatment of Dr. N.K. Agarwal who was the proprietor of Nightangle Hospital. 13. Be that as it may, the learned trial court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused Kailash Ch. Jain and therefore, he was found guilty. The trial court never found that the offences against the petitioner were proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, an offence against an accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. A simple opinion of the court that the prosecution has proved the offences against an accused would not do. 14. At this stage, a brief visit to the definitions of cheating and forgery under Sections 415 and 463 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE may fruitful. A simple opinion of the court that the prosecution has proved the offences against an accused would not do. 14. At this stage, a brief visit to the definitions of cheating and forgery under Sections 415 and 463 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE may fruitful. Section 415 of the IPC reads as under: “ Section 415 - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Section 463 - Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record 1 or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” 15. Now, where is the evidence that the documents submitted by the petitioner were forged documents, which were allegedly used as genuine documents? The authorities in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had examined those documents through its doctor, the witness Dr. S. Bora (PW-3). This witness has never claimed that the documents which he had examined were forged documents. The petitioner was not admitted at Nightangle Hospital but it is proved that he was under the treatment of Dr. N.K. Agarwal, the Proprietor of Nightangle Hospital. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the documents submitted by the petitioner for receiving money through his Medi-claim Policy were forged documents. 16. Ordinarily, High Court, in a revision petition, is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence. But here in this case, this Court had to reappreciate the evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the prosecution side has failed to prove that the documents submitted by the petitioner were forged documents. 16. Ordinarily, High Court, in a revision petition, is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence. But here in this case, this Court had to reappreciate the evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the prosecution side has failed to prove that the documents submitted by the petitioner were forged documents. In that case, this Court is constrained to hold that the offences against the present petitioner have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. With the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that since the offences against the present petitioner are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the impugned judgments convicting him under Sections 420 /468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE must be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order st dated 18.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Assam, c Guwahati in Special Case No.151 /03 affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Kamrup at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.11/2008 are set aside. The petitioner Kailash Chand Jain is acquitted from this case.