JUDGMENT : Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, J. Criminal Appeal No.2933/2011 has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, whereas Criminal Appeal No.2574/2011 has been filed under Section 372 of the Code. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 29.08.2011 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.136/2010, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant Bhagwat (CRA No.2933/11) has been convicted for the offence under Secs.420, 467/471 and 468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively. Assailing the conviction passed in above sessions trial, the accused Bhagwat has preferred the Cri. Appeal No.2933/2011. 3. The complainant–victim, Vinod Kushwaha, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2574/2011 wherein it is asserted that while the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, it did not award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/– by exercising discretion under Sec.357 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is seen that the appellant-accused has completed the jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 5. It is admitted that the accused and complainant were acquainted with each other and resident of the same village. 6. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2010, PW-1 Vinod Kushwaha lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Mandi, District Sehore, alleging that the accused had shown him agricultural land belonging to one Khumair Singh, a resident of the same village, for the purpose of sale and also produced documents relating thereto, quoting the price at Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. It is alleged that, at the time of execution of the agreement, the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- in cash as advance, with the agreement that the sale deed would be executed at the time of harvesting of the crop. The agreement was reduced into writing. Thereafter, in the month of June, the accused visited the house of the complainant and took away the said agreement from Rahul, the complainant’s younger brother, on the pretext of preparing certain accounts, assuring that it would be returned. However, the accused neither returned the document nor repaid the advance amount. The agreement was reduced into writing. Thereafter, in the month of June, the accused visited the house of the complainant and took away the said agreement from Rahul, the complainant’s younger brother, on the pretext of preparing certain accounts, assuring that it would be returned. However, the accused neither returned the document nor repaid the advance amount. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.82/2010 was registered against the accused. 7. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and during interrogation, the memorandum Ex.P/33 was prepared and original agreement Ex.P/3 was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/34. It was further found that the document Ex.P/3 contains forged signatures. Handwriting/signature samples of the Khumair Singh, Hetam Singh, Ashok Mewade were taken and sent to the hand writing expert for examination for opinion. It was further found that the owner of the land neither gave any consent to the accused-appellant to sell his agricultural land nor he was aware of the agreement of sale Ex.P/3. 8. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant,who claimed to be innocent. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 17 witnesses including complainant Vinod Kushwaha (PW1), Chhotelal (PW2), Babulal (PW3), Rahul Kushwaha (PW4), Ashok Mewade (PW5), Hotam Singh(PW7), Khumair Singh (PW9), Virendra Singh (PW10), Indira Bai (PW11) and Govind (PW14) Thereafter, examination of appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.The appellant has pleaded false implication in the matter. In support of defence, no witness has been produced by the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty for offence, punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients u/ss. 468, 467, 420 & 471 I.P.C because, there are major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the prosecution evidence and they are inconsistent. It is argued that the cost of land was Rs.3,25,000/- per acre and four acres of land was agreed to be purchased then why less amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid as advance. It is further argued that the original owner Khumair Singh intended to sale out the property, therefore, there is no cheating on the part of the accused. It is argued that the cost of land was Rs.3,25,000/- per acre and four acres of land was agreed to be purchased then why less amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid as advance. It is further argued that the original owner Khumair Singh intended to sale out the property, therefore, there is no cheating on the part of the accused. It is further argued that in the agreement of sale, it is mentioned that Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid to the accused, while the complainant deposed that the said amount was paid to the accused in parts. 11. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for victim that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the forgery and cheating was done by preparing the false and fabricated agreement of sale. It is further submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the trial court for placing reliance upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Counsel for victim argued that the trial court ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- the advance paid to the accused, taking into consideration the provisions of Sec.357 of the Cr.P.C. 12. The main questions which needs consideration for just and factual decision of both the appeals are as thus: (i) Whether, about eight months prior to 08.03.2010, the accused cheated the complainant, Vinod Kushwaha, by fraudulently inducing him to deliver a sum of 2,50,000/– and obtained the said amount from him? (ii) Whether the accused forged the agreement Ex.P/3 with the intention of dishonestly inducing the complainant Vinod Kushwaha,to believe that he would get agricultural land purchased for him/complainant, and thereby received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/– from the complainant? (iii) Whether the accused forged the agreement of sale with the intention that the said document will be used for the purpose of cheating? (iv) Whether the accused, at the time of execution of the agreement of sale, knew or had reason to believe that the said document was forged, fraudulently used it as a genuine document? (v) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive compensation from appellant-accused? 13. PW-1, complainant Vinod Kushwaha, stated that when he returned in the evening after completing his work, the accused Bhagwat met him near a well and told him to arrange a sum of Rs.2,50,000/– assuring that he would get agricultural land purchased for him and arrange the balance amount himself. 13. PW-1, complainant Vinod Kushwaha, stated that when he returned in the evening after completing his work, the accused Bhagwat met him near a well and told him to arrange a sum of Rs.2,50,000/– assuring that he would get agricultural land purchased for him and arrange the balance amount himself. The complainant thereafter, collected money from his relatives. He borrowed Rs.45,000/– from Deviprasad, Rs.25,000/– and Rs.30,000/– from Kanhaiyalal, and after about eight days, handed over Rs.20,000/– to the accused. He further took the accused to Bhagwat Doraha, where he borrowed Rs.10,000/– from his brother-in-law Govardhan and gave it to the accused. Subsequently, he again paid Rs.10,000/– at the house of the accused. He also borrowed Rs.20,000/– from Govind Singh, and on another occasion again paid Rs.10,000/– at the house of the accused. In addition, he withdrew Rs.20,000/–, Rs.20,000/– and Rs.5,000/– from the bank and handed over the amounts to the accused. 14. PW-1 further stated that the accused took him to Sihora Bus Stand for the purchase of stamp papers, whereafter an agreement of sale was notarized and his signatures, along with those of Khumair Singh, Hotam, Rajesh and Ashok, were obtained thereon. The accused handed over the said agreement to him, which he kept in his house. On the following day, when PW-1 was away from home, the accused came to his residence and asked his younger brother Rahul to hand over the notarized agreement on the pretext that it was required for registration. Believing him, Rahul handed over the document to the accused. In the evening, when PW-1 returned, Rahul enquired whether the registry had been executed, to which PW-1 replied that he was unaware. Thereafter, PW-1 went to the village of the accused, where the accused told him to come again after twenty days. From the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant Vinod took money from different people from time to time and handed over to the accused for purchase of land. 15. PW-13 Govardhan deposed that the complainant Vinod, had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/– from him and handed it over to the accused, and after 10–15 days, he again advanced Rs.10,000/– to Vinod, which was also given to the accused. He further stated that Vinod had informed him that the accused had arranged agricultural land for him. 16. 15. PW-13 Govardhan deposed that the complainant Vinod, had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/– from him and handed it over to the accused, and after 10–15 days, he again advanced Rs.10,000/– to Vinod, which was also given to the accused. He further stated that Vinod had informed him that the accused had arranged agricultural land for him. 16. Complainant Vinod (PW-1) further stated that the accused obtained his signatures on portion marked as 'A to A' on document Ex.P/3, stating that it was required for execution, but the portion marked ‘B to B’ does not bear his signatures. According to the prosecution, the said document Ex.P/3 was handed over by Rahul (PW-4), the complainant’s brother, to the accused Bhagwat. PW-4 Rahul corroborated this version and stated that the accused had come to his house and asked for the notary document, whereupon he handed it over to him. He also clarified that he was not aware of what was written in the notary document. The document Ex.P/3 was later recovered from the possession of the accused pursuant to a disclosure statement made by him. PW-12 Gulab Singh deposed that the accused was interrogated by the police in his presence and disclosed that the document was in possession of his counsel (who prepared the agreement). However, in cross-examination, this witness admitted that no such disclosure was made by the accused before the police in his presence, nor was any document seized in his presence. On the other hand, PW-6 Devi Prasad stated that the police interrogated the accused in his presence, during which the accused disclosed that the agreement was with his counsel residing at Nehru Colony. He further stated that they accompanied the accused to Nehru Colony, where the accused obtained the agreement from his counsel and handed it over to the police. Nothing has emerged in his cross-examination to discredit or disbelieve his testimony. 17. A perusal of the agreement reveals that it purports to be an agreement for the purchase of 2½ acres of land for a consideration of Rs.8,13,000/–, and allegedly bears the signatures of Khumair Singh, Hotam, Rajesh and Ashok. PW-5 Ashok has deposed that about 10 acres of land stands recorded in the name of his father, out of which 3 acres have been given by his father to his mother, leaving him with approximately 6–7 acres of land. PW-5 Ashok has deposed that about 10 acres of land stands recorded in the name of his father, out of which 3 acres have been given by his father to his mother, leaving him with approximately 6–7 acres of land. He categorically stated that his father has never sold the said land to anyone. He further deposed that about a year back, when the police apprehended accused Bhagwat, they were summoned to the police station, where they learnt that the accused had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of his father’s land and had prepared a fabricated document in the name of Vinod. He also stated that the police obtained his signature specimens, which were marked on Ex.P/5 to Ex.P/9 at portion 'A to A' and S-21 to S-25. In addition, he handed over certain notes prepared by him during his training at the Agricultural College with regard to plantation of mushroom crops, which were taken by the police as handwriting samples. These notes are marked as Ex.P/23 to Ex.P/29 and bear his signatures at portion 'A to A'. PW-5 further deposed that, in his presence, the police directed accused Bhagwat to write the name ‘Khumair Singh’, which writings were marked as Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/21 and S-1 to S-5. Likewise, the police instructed accused Bhagwat to write the name ‘Hotam Singh’, which were marked as Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/26, and also to write the name ‘Ashok’, which writings were marked as Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/31. Nothing has come in the statement of this witness to make in not reliable. 18. PW-7 Hotam Singh, son of Khumair Singh, deposed that his father had never entered into any agreement for sale of land, nor had he signed any such agreement as a witness giving his consent. He denied that document Ex.P/3 bears his signature at the portion marked 'D to D'.He further stated that the police had obtained his signature specimens. Nothing has emerged in his testimony during cross-examination to render his statement unreliable. 19. PW-8, stamp vendor Ramdas Gupta, deposed that on 31.01.2009 he had sold a stamp paper of Rs.100/– to Vinod and Khumair Singh Mewada for the purpose of a sale agreement. He further stated that he does not personally know Khumair Singh. He also deposed that the stamp paper used for preparation of Ex.P/3 was purchased in the name of Khumair Singh, son of Raghunath Singh Mewada. He further stated that he does not personally know Khumair Singh. He also deposed that the stamp paper used for preparation of Ex.P/3 was purchased in the name of Khumair Singh, son of Raghunath Singh Mewada. However, he clarified that he cannot say with certainty whether the person, who actually purchased the stamp for Ex.P/3 was Khumair Singh or not. 20. The stamp paper used for preparing Ex.P/3 was provided by the office of the Registrar of Stamps, Sehore. In this connection, the statement of S.K. Sahu (PW-15) was recorded. During cross-examination, this witness deposed regarding Ex.P/50, in which the name of purchaser is mentioned as Khumair Singh over portion marked as 'E to E' and marked as Q/2 by hand writing expert Rajendra Verma PW16.The document Ex.P/3 which contains the writing Khumair Singh was examined by the Handwriting Expert, Rajendra Verma (PW-16), and marked as Q/2. PW-16 Rajendra Verma deposed that when the signatures marked as Q/1, Q/2, and Q/3 allegedly of Khumair Singh, were compared with his specimen signatures Ex.P/44 to Ex.P/48 and Ex.P/51 to Ex.P/63 and marked as A/1 to A/20, they were found not to match the specimen signatures of Khumair Singh. He further deposed that the signature of the accused, marked as Q/3, when compared with the signatures F/1 to F/15 on documents marked Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/21,was found to be that of the accused. This goes to show that the stamp used for execution of Ex.P/3 was procured by the accused, who also forged the signatures of Khumair Singh, marked as Q/1, Q/2, and Q/3. It also emerged from the statement of Rajendra Verma (PW-16) that the accused forged the signatures of Hotam Singh and Ashok, marked as Q/4 and Q/5, respectively. 21. It is a settled principle of law that the opinion of a handwriting expert is relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, such opinion is not conclusive proof and cannot by itself form the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Courts are required to exercise caution while appreciating expert opinion, as it is after all an opinion and susceptible to error. However, such opinion is not conclusive proof and cannot by itself form the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Courts are required to exercise caution while appreciating expert opinion, as it is after all an opinion and susceptible to error. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhagwandas v. State of M.P. , 2003 (2) MPLJ 369 , upheld the conviction under Sections 467 , 468, and 471 IPC where handwriting expert’s evidence was corroborated by testimony of witnesses denying execution of the document. 22. In the present case, the prosecution examined PW-16 Rajendra Verma, the handwriting expert, who compared the disputed signatures marked Q/1, Q/2 and Q/3 on Ex.P/3 with the admitted signatures of Khumair Singh marked A/1 to A/20, and opined that the disputed signatures were not those of Khumair Singh but, were forged. He further opined that the signatures marked Q/3 on Ex.P/3, when compared with the specimen signatures of the accused taken during investigation, were found to be that of the accused himself. Similarly, he found that the disputed signatures marked Q/4 and Q/5, allegedly of Hotam Singh and Ashok respectively, were also forged by the accused. This opinion stands corroborated by the categorical testimony of PW-5 Ashok and PW-7 Hotam Singh, who denied having signed the document Ex.P/3 at any point of time, and also by PW-15 S.K. Sahu regarding issuance of the stamp paper. The consistency between the expert opinion and ocular testimony of these witnesses lends credibility to the prosecution version. 23. Thus, in the light of settled law and the corroborative evidence available on record and ratio laid down in Bhagwandas (Supra), the opinion of the handwriting expert in the present case inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon to hold that the accused forged the signatures on Ex.P/3 with dishonest intention. 24. It has been argued on behalf of defence that in the document Ex.P/3 there is mention of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- while the witnesses deposed that the payment was made in parts and this discrepancy makes the prosecution story doubtful. In the opinion of this Court, the above argument that the payments were made in installments does not render the prosecution story doubtful. Though the witnesses deposed that the complainant advanced the amount in parts, this only does not go to the root of the case. In the opinion of this Court, the above argument that the payments were made in installments does not render the prosecution story doubtful. Though the witnesses deposed that the complainant advanced the amount in parts, this only does not go to the root of the case. The core issue in the present matter is whether the accused, with dishonest and fraudulent intent, induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/– on the pretext of purchasing land purportedly belonging to Khumair Singh. The evidence on record,including the testimony of PW-1, PW-4, and the handwriting expert PW-16, clearly establishes that the accused procured the agreement Ex.P/3, forged the signatures of Khumair Singh, Hotam, and Ashok, and misrepresented to the complainant that the land would be transferred/sold. The manner or timing of payments does not disturb the fact that the accused acted with deliberate intent to cheat, and therefore, payment in parts cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. 25. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the accused forged the document Ex.P/3. The accused first induced the complainant to advance a sum of Rs.2,50,000/– on the pretext of purchasing land purportedly belonging to Khumair Singh. It is apparent that the accused acted dishonestly, fully aware that Khumair Singh had never intended to sell the land, and that the document Ex.P/3 did not bear the signatures of Khumair Singh, Hotam, or Ashok. The acts of the accused thus constitute forgery punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code , forgery intended for cheating under Section 468 IPC, and cheating under Section 420 IPC. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 26. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court are hereby affirmed. As noted, the appellant has already undergone the sentence awarded, and therefore, no further order is called for in this regard. 27. Now coming to the compensation aspect, the learned counsel for the victim has argued that the trial court has erred in not awarding the compensation amount to the victim. It has further been argued that the entire advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- ought to have been ordered to be given to the victim/complainant as compensation under the provisions of Sec.357 of the Cr.P.C. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused vehemently opposed the argument by submitting that the contention of learned counsel for the victim is misplaced. It has further been argued that the entire advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- ought to have been ordered to be given to the victim/complainant as compensation under the provisions of Sec.357 of the Cr.P.C. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused vehemently opposed the argument by submitting that the contention of learned counsel for the victim is misplaced. Sec.357 of the Cr.P.C. does not empower court to award compensation, though such power is discretionary but, not mandatory. It has further been argued that the object of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. is not to confer an automatic right upon the complainant to demand compensation, but to enable the Court, in appropriate cases, to direct payment where the facts and circumstances so justify. 29. In this regard it would be apt to mention that the Courts may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim, who has suffered by the action of the accused. The power of the Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but, it is in addition thereto. However, the payment by way of compensation must be reasonable and what is reasonable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by victim and ability of accused to pay. 30. However, the payment by way of compensation must be reasonable and what is reasonable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by victim and ability of accused to pay. 30. Sec.357 Cr.P.C. (order to pay compensation) runs as thus: (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied- (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court; (c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death; (d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto. (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented. before the decision of the appeal. (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section. 31. In the present case, on a careful analysis of the evidence on record, it is apparent that the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/– as advance to the accused under the false pretext of purchasing agricultural land. The accused was fully aware that the land did not belong to him and having forged the signatures of Khumair Singh, Hotam, and Ashok on the agreement Ex.P/3, misled the complainant and obtained the money dishonestly. In view of these circumstances, the complainant has clearly suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.2,50,000/- as a direct consequence of the criminal acts of the accused. It is most appropriate that this Court directs the accused to pay compensation equivalent to the said amount. Such a direction would not only deter similar offences but also subserve the ends of justice by providing relief to the victim, without relegating him to the uncertainties of a separate civil suit. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to direct payment of compensation to the victim for the loss caused by the offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the sum dishonestly obtained, it is just and appropriate that the complainant be compensated. Therefore, the trial court ought to have directed the accused to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/– to the complainant as compensation, in addition to the punishment awarded for the offences under Sections 420 , 467 read with Sec.471 and 468 of IPC. 32. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence directed by the trial court are hereby affirmed. As pointed out earlier, the appellant has already undergone the sentence awarded, and therefore, no further order is called for in that regard. Turning to the question of compensation and considering the fact that 15 years has passed since the incident, the accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/– to the complainant,Vinod Kushwaha, as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Turning to the question of compensation and considering the fact that 15 years has passed since the incident, the accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/– to the complainant,Vinod Kushwaha, as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The said amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.In default of payment of compensation within the stipulated period, the appellant shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to be undergone in default of payment of fine by the trial Court as indicated above. In the event of non payment of compensation amount within above period, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization. If the appellant still fails to pay this amount, the same may be collected as provided under Sec.431 of CrPC and be paid to victim Vinod Kushwaha. 33. The appeals stand disposed off in above terms. 34. Pending application(s), if any, stands closed.