1. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 411, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra on November 29, 1985. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 5-9-1986. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 411 Indian Penal Code was set aside. Conviction under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. Sentence of the petitioner was reduced from three years to two years under Section 468 I.P.C. from three years to two years under Section 471 I.P.C. as also from three years to two years under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. However, the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner were ordered to run concurrently. Sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court was maintained.

2. The prosecution story in brief is as follows :--

Satranji Lal petitioner hailed from Delhi. On 8-12-1976 he happened to go to railway station Banga. There he met its Station Master, Kedar Nath, PW-2, and misrepresented to him that he had come there to collect figures regarding booking of wagons of coarse grain under the directions of Agriculture Ministry, Government of India, He misled the Station Master and inspected the record of the Railway Station. In this process he removed one R. R. book containing blank railway receipts numbering 590309 to 590350 from the said railway station. In order to prosecute his plan, Satrangi Lal went to Shahbad Markanda Tehsil, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. There he contracted Daryai Lal, said to be his old friend. Satrangi Lal told Daryai Lal that he wanted to start a firm in the name and style of M/s Arjan Mal Jagan Nath and for that he sought his help. With the help of his friend, Satrangi Lal took a shop from Om Prakash, through Subhash Chand commission agent and opened his office therein. Satrangi Lal then purchased articles of furniture for his office, got the name of the firm inscribed and got bill books and other necessary forms and letter pad in the name of his firm printed. He employed Diwan Chand as munim. He got his accounts opened in the Punjab National Bank and New Bank of India Shahbad having been introduced through Shri Ram PW and Sunder Lal PW. After establishing the office and employing his munim and opening accounts with the banks Satrangi Lal started writing letters to various firms in India. All those letters were written by the munim employed by him. He sought supply of dals through railway wagons. His efforts were crowned with success and Satrangi Lal succeeded to seek orders for the supply of dals from various firms. It was agreed that Satrangi Lal will send railway receipts and hundis through the Bank. Satrangi Lal used the railway receipts and R.Rs allegedly stolen by him from railway station Banga, prepared false railway receipts, hundis and sent the same to various banks. On receipt of these hundis, the firms concerned made payment to the banks and in all a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was credited in the accounts of Satrangi Lal opened in Punjab National Bank and New Bank of India at Shahbad. Out of this amount, Satrangi Lal withdrew Rs. 1,10,000/-. The remaining amount lay deposited with the two banks mentioned above in the account of Satrangi Lal. It so happened, as expected, the firms sending the money did not get dals through railways. Obviously they made enquiries from the railways as well as from the banks. The situation gathered publicity and ultimately the matter came to the notice of the police which registered a case against Satrangi Lal and started investigation. The parties produced documents before the police. The accused also admitted the facts before the police during the course of investigation. Thus the investigation by the police culminated into presenting a challan against Satrangi Lal in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jullundur.

3. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW-1 Markandeoy Singh, D.I.G., PW-2 Kedar Nath, PW-3 Siri Ram, PW-4 Darai Lal, PW-5 G. D. Kaushik, Bank Manager, New Bank of India, PW-6 Sunder Lal of Printing Press Shahbad, PW-7 Kewal Babu, Cleark Municipal Committee, Thanesar, PW-8 B. K. Bansal, Accountant New Bank of India Shahbad, PW-9 Gaja Nan Anand Mulye, Principal Foreman Eastern Railway Police, PW-10 Keshav Purshottam Kini, Advocate formerly posted as a Manager, New Bank of India, Baroda Branch in January 1977, PW-11 D. D. Johni, Deputy Chief Officer, Central Bank of India, Bombay, PW-12 Noshir Jahangir Gandhi, Accountant Central Bank, PW-13 N. C. Mehta, Sub-accountant, Central Bank of India, PW-14 Sumer Chand, Shop Keeper Shahbad, PW-15 Dayal Chand, Carpenter Shahbad, PW-16 Tilak Raj, Photographer, PW-17, Parkash Chand, Carpenter, PW-18 Parveen Chander partner M/s. Dalia Hari-Lal Zaverdas Wadi Bambba Thana, PW-19 Madan Mohan, Superintendent Printing and Stationary Northern Railway School Basti Delhi, PW-20 Lajpat Rai, Booking Clerk, Railway Station Ludhiana, PW-21 Kewal Krishan, Clerk Post Office, Shahbad Markanda, PW-22 Ranjit Singh, Shopkeeper Shahbad, PW-23 Sohan Singh Cultivator of Shahbad, PW-24 Subhash Chander, Commission Agents Shahbad, PW-25 Diwan Chand, Tea vendor, PW-26 Sh. Tirlok Chand, retired Station Master, PW-27 Bahaldev Singh, Rubber Stamp Manufacturer, PW-28 Bansi Lal, Commission Agents, PW-29, Dinesh Chander Partner M/s Manju Lal Bhai Lal Ahrnedabad, PW-30 Parveen Chander partner firm M/s Dalia Hari Lal Javer Dass Wari Bombar Thana Distt. Baroda, PW-31 Pawan Kumar son of Om Parkash, Shopkeeper Shahbad, PW-32 Sunder Lal Gupta, retired Manager Punjab National Bank.

4. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was called upon to make a statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. In his statement, accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication and petitioner examined DW-1 Banarsi Dass and he himself appeared as DW-2.

5. Petitioner deposed thathis name was Krishan Kumar Manchanda and that he had been falsely implicated because of enmity with Daryal Lal, PW-1. DW-1 Banarsi Dass stated that he partly investigated the case and had obtained the specimen writing and signature of the petitioner when he was in police-custody. DW-1 further deposed that the specimen writings of the accused Satrangi Lal had not been sent to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison as there was no need to obtain the opinion of the Hand Writing expert on the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a responsible person having a roaring business at Delhi and he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Daryal Lal. The learned Counsel further contended that both father of the petitioner and father of Daryai Lal hailed from Seikhupura now in Pakistan; that they were commission agents and money lenders; that father of Daryai Lal had pledged some ornaments with father of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 4,700/- that after the partition of India, petitioner shifted to India and settled in Delhi, that Daryai Lal started his business as cloth merchant in Shahbad but he could not settle in the business; that then Daryai Lal and his father Lal Chand came to Delhi to see his father and requested him for some help as he had been ruined as a result of the partition of the country; that he asked father of the petitioner for return of the pledged ornaments with a promise to pay the mortgage amount subsequently; that the father of Satrangi Lal took pity and returned ornaments to the father of Daryai Lal; that thereafter father of the petitioner and father of Daryai Lal died; that the petitioner asked Daryai Lal many a times for the repayment of money and that due to this Daryai Lal nursed a grudge against the petitioner and got the present case registered falsely against him.

7. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that the story put forth by the defence is afterthought; that the defence version was not put to Daryai Lal when he appeared as a prosecution witness; that similarly this version was not put in the statement of Satrangi Lal recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and that it was for the first time that Satrangi Lal, petitioner concocted this false story when he appeared as a defence witness. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the story putforth by the petitioner is unbelieyable and improbable as father of the petitioner was not expected to return the pledged ornaments to the father of Daryai Lal without obtaining from the latter the amount of loan. It was further submitted by the learned State counsel that there is overwhelming evidence on record to connect Satrangi Lal with the commission of offence charged against him.

8. PW-31 Pawan Kumar stated that the petitioner had come to him at his shop at Shahbad in the company of Subhash Chand; that a shop was leased to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-; that after two months the petitioner left the shop without delivering the possession thereof back to the witness and that the petitioner had affixed a board with the name of his firm M/s Arjan Mal Jagan Nath on the shop.

9. PW-14 Sumer Chand another shopkeeper of Shahbad deposed that the accused had purchased a takhat posh for Rs. 80/- from him to be placed at the place of his business.

10. PW-15, Dayal Chand a carpenter stated that the petitioner had purchased one chair from him which the police ultimately recovered from the shop opened by the petitioner.

11. PW-17 Parkash Chand deposed that on the asking of the petitioner he wrote the name of this firm on the face wall of the shop.

12. PW-27,Bhaldev Singh Waliadeposed that he prepared rubber stamp for the petitioner. Sunder Lal of Shahbad appeared as PW-6 and deposed that he had printed letters Exs. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/E as also Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/11 under orders of the petitioner.

13. PW-7 Kewal Babu stated that Doctor Om Parkash Chemist of Shahbad got him employed with the petitioner; that he worked for 2/3 days there; that on the asking of the petitioner he wrote letter Ex.PW5/1 and that his services were terminated by the petitioner under the pretext that he was a slow person.

14. Kewal Krishan, PW-21 deposed that the petitioner came to him in the post office and that the petitioner had told him that he had opened a firm in the name and style of M/s Arjan Mal Jagan Nath at Partap Mandi Shahbad and all the Dak meant for his firm might be delivered to him. PW Kishan Lal further stated that the accused used to visit the post office at 9.00 a.m. to collect the Dak daily. Sohan Singh, PW-23 stated that he was tenant of Om Parkash, petitioner, that Satrangi Lal had taken one of five shops of Om Parkash at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and had opened a firm there in the name and style of M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath; that the petitioner had also employed some person as munim; that he so often met the petitioner and wished him well; that after two months the petitioner closed the shop and left the place and that Om Parkash had put a lock on the shop.

15. PW-24 Subhash Chand deposed that Satrangi Lal had met him and introduced himself as a man of M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath and sought his help for getting some shop on rent at Shahbad. PW-24 further deposed that the petitioner had told him that Daryai Lal of Shahbad was his friend.

16. PW-25 Diwan Chand deposed that he had worked with the petitioner as his munim through Subhash Chander of Shahbad; that the petitioner assigned him the duty of writing letters on the printed posi cards bearing the name of the firm, that the petitioner used to give dictation for writing letters; that these letters were addressed to different firms of Bombay, Calcutta and Gujarat; that almost daily the witness used to write about ten letters under the dictation of the petitiorler; that the replies of these letters were received through post; that sometimes the Dak was delivered at the firm shop and sometimes the petitioner himself would go to the post office to receive the Dak; that inevery letter, the petitioner used to write words 'Satrangi Lal'; that the witness remained posted for about 2 1/2 months with the petitioner; that thereafter the petitioner left the shop telling the witness that he would return after seven days; that the witness was instructed to come to the shop daily and receive the Dak and put letters in the shop; that the witness continued coming to the place of the firm for a week and thereafter he stopped coming there; that according to the witness he scribed letters Ex. PW 18/B, Ex. PW18/J, Ex. PW18/M, Ex. PW18/H, Ex. PW 18/G, Ex. PW 18/F and Ex. PW18/N and Ex. PW25/T-1 to Ex. PW25/T-6, Ex. PW25/U-1 and Ex. PW25/U-2 Ex. PW 25/V, Ex. 25/W/1 to Ex/ PW25/W/8.

17. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitting that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved the visit of the petitioner to Daryai Lal; hiring of his shop; opening of the firm office; employment of munims; opening the accounts with the bank; sending of hundis through banks regarding the sale of dal and writing of letters to various firms of Calcutta, Bombay and other places. Learned Counsel further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that it was a false case planted on him at the instance of PW Daryai Lal would cut no ice as not only Daryai Lal alone but also so many other persons have consistently proved the prosecution story regarding the setting up of firm office in the name and style of M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath by the petitioner at Shahbad and then his entering into correspondence with so many firms outside Haryana regarding the business. He further submitted that the witnesses like painter, photographer, carpenter, the owner of the shop and the Munim, examined by the prosecution have clearly proved these allegations against the petitioner. He further submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that relations between Daryai Lal and Satrangi Lal were not cordial, the prosecution evidence other than the evidence of Daryai Lal himself is sufficient to prove the case against the petitioner.

18. The second set of witnesses examined by the prosecution are regarding the opening of accounts by the petitioner with the banks at Shahbad. For that purpose there is evidence of PW 3 Siri Ram of Shahbad who deposed that Daryai Lal Cloth Merchant had come to his shop along with the petitioner and told him that the petitioner was his class-fellow and that he wanted to open an account in the Punjab National Bank. Siri Ram PW-3 further stated that at the instance of Daryai Lal he attested the form of the accused for opening his account in the Bank. Ranjit Singh examined as PW 22 stated that at his introduction, the account of the petitioner was opened in Punjab National Bank; that the petitioner had also purchased some articles like an earthern pot and wooden stand from his shop; that he attested signatures of the petitioner on form Ex.PW 22/A at point Ex. P. 1. He further deposed that account opening form was then blank. Sunder Lal then Manager of Punjab National Bank Shahbad appearing as PW 32 deposed .that the petitioner was introduced to him by Siri Ram, that the form bore signature Ex. PW 3 1/A of Satrangi Lal and signatures Ex. PW 31/B of Siri Ram; that Siri Ram whose account was in the bank had introduced Satrangi Lal to him. The witness further deposed that he had attested the signature of Satrangi Lal at specimen signature slip Ex. PW 31/D and signature teller card PW 31/E; that according to him, the petitioner had appended signatures on Ex. P.W 31/D, Ex. PW 31/A and Ex. PW22/A. PW-6 Sunder Lal deposed that the petitioner had come to him and told him that he was related to Daryai Lal and that he placed orders for the printing of certain letters with the witness. He further deposed that he had also introduced the petitioner to New Bank of India for the opening of his account.

19. Shri B. K. Bansal, accountant, New Bank of India Shahbad, appearing as PW-8, deposed that on 12-1-1977 the petitioner had come to him and submitted form Ex. PW9/A; that the petitioner had appended his specimen signature on the sheet Ex.PW 9/B; that the petitioner had also filled in pay in slip for Rs. 200/-; that the petitioner had signed these documents in his presence; that thereafter the accounts of the petitioner was opened and that he had issued cheque book Ex. PW9/F to the petitioner.

20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Bank Manager and the Accountant had falsely deposed that the petitioner had appended his signature on various forms and had opened his account in the name of the firm M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath. According to him the most appropriate evidence in favour of the prosecution would have been to have the disputed signatures of the petitioner compared from the hand writing expert and the prosecution did not choose to do so for the reasons best known to it.

21. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that the Bank Manager, the Accountant of the Bank and the persons introducing Satrangi Lal to the Bank authorities knew petitioner fully well; that the petitioner had appended his signatures on various documents in their presence; that in such a situation there was no need to press into service the onion of the hand-writing expert. According to him the science of handwriting is not an exact science and the evidence of the person in whose presence the petitioner had put down his signature on various documents of the banks for opening his accounts is the best evidence.

22. I have given my due thought to the rival contentions and I am of the view that it was not necessary for the prosecution to have got compared the signatures of the petitioner from handwriting expert. The Bank Manager and the Accountant of the Bank as also the persons who introduced the petitioner to the bank authorities have categorically deposed that they fully knew Satrangi Lal who had put down his signatures in their presence and that the signature were of Satrangi Lal and none-else.

23. Regarding writing of letters by the petitioner to various firms for cheating them, Diwan Chand PW-25 had deposed on oath that he was employed as a munim by the petitioner. Diwan Chand deposed that he, under the dictation of the petitioner, had written letters Ex. PW25/A, Ex. PW25/B and letters Ex. PW25/D to Ex. PW25/F.

24. Keshav Purushatam Kiru appearing as PW-10 also deposed that he was posted as Manager New Bank of India in 1977; that Hundi Ex. PW 10/A along with RR Ex. PW9/E was received in the bank and that there were instructions to the Bank that it should remit the amount received against the said RR to the accounts of the firm M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath. According to the witness payment was received from M/s Dalia Hari Lal Zaber Dass on 29-1 -1977 and endorsement Ex. PW 10/B on the back of Ex. PW 10/A bore the signature of the witness; that according to the witness Rs. 20,000/- were collected and deposited in the accounts of firm. M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath vide bank draft Ex. PW 9/E-5. According to the witness he had authorised the delivery to the drawee firm. PW 18 Parveen Chander of M/s Dalia Hari Lal Zaver Dass deposed on oath that on 23-12-1976 letter Ex. PW 18/A was despatched to them issued by M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath; that thereafter letters Ex. PW 18/ A to Ex. PW 18/L were also received by their firm and that they collected Hundis Ex. PW 10/B and RR Ex. PW 9/E and got the RR entries from the bank in their name on payment of Rs. 20,000/-. Diwan Chand, Munim appearing as PW 25 also deposed that letter Ex. PW 18/A to Ex. PW 18/C were written by him scribing the name 61 Satrangi Lal, the petitioner under his dictation.

25. The learned Counsel for the State deriving support from this evidence submitted that it stood proved that M/s Dalia Hari Lal Zaver Dass Wadi Bambha thana Baroda were cheated by the petitioner and deprived of Rs. 20,000/-against forged RRs and Hundis. N. C. Mehta, Sub Accountant Central Bank of India Ahmedabad appearing as PW 15 deposed that Hundi Ex. PW 13A along with RR Ex. PW 9/G was received from the accused to collect Rs. 20,000/- againts the Hundi. According to him, after the receipt of the amount, he made endorsement Ex. PW 13/C on the said RR authorising Drawee to receive the goods against the RR. Diwan Chand munim PW-25 has corroborated by deposing that letters Ex. PW 25/T-I to T-6 were written by him under the dictation of the petitioner The evidence on record thus clearly I proves the charge of cheating and forgery against | the accused.

26. The State counsel also drew my attention to the evidence of Jahangir Gandhi Accountant Central Bank Ahmedabad. According to this witness when posted as Accountant, a letter Ex. PW 12/A said to have been issued by M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath was received in the bank on 22-1-1977 along with hundi Ex. PW12/B and PR Ex. PW9/H. He further stated that in response to the Hundi and RR, the bank collected the amount from the drawee and remitted sum of Rs. 20,000/- to their bank branch at Shahbad for payment to the accused. According to this witnesses he vide his endorsement Ex. PW 12/C authorised delivery of goods to the drawee-firm. This evidence further shows that Satrangi Lal accused-petitioner cheated these firms by forging letters. Hundis, RRs and making use of such forged documents.

27. PW-11 D.D. Johni, Deputy Chief Officer, Central Bank of India stated that on 18-7-1977 vide recovery memo Ex.PW 11/A, he had produced documents Exs. PW 11/B to Ex. PW 11/D which were received in their bank by letter Ex. PW 11/D requiring the bank to collect the amount of Rs. 20,000/-as per Hundi Ex. PW 11/B from M/s Bharat Kumar Mool Raj Natha Street Bhat Bazar, Bombay against RR Ex. PW 9/D. He further stated that this amount could not be collected and could not be sent to the consigner as the drawee had dishonoured the Hundi. Diwan Chand the then Munim of Satrangi Lal accused deposed that letters Ex. PW 25/N, Ex. PW 25/Q, Ex. PW 25/S were written by him to these firm at the instance of the petitioner. Thus, cheating and forgery by the petitioner to these firms is also proved.

28. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the evidence on record shows that letter Pad of firm M/s Arjun Mal Jagan Nath bore on it telephone number of another firm and that it shows that the petitioner was innocent and that the firm whose telephone number was found printed on the letter pad was the firm involved in the case. Petitioner has got printed telephone number of some other firm on the pad of his firm. Therefore, such wrong number of telephone existing on the pad of the petitioner firm in no way helps the petitioner. The incriminating material, otherwise available on record is quite sufficient to prove the charges of forgery and cheating against the petitioner.

29. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no merit in the Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.