SURYA PRASAD, J.
(1) THIS Is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1987 passed by the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1985 (Ranjit Singh v. State) partly allowing the appeal and partly dismissing the appellant, convicting the appellant revisionist under Sections 168 and 468 I. P. C. and sentencing him to two years -rigorous imprisonment and a fine of RS. 500. 00 for each of the offences under Sections 466 and 468 I. P. C. but granting him the benefit of section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders Act and ordering him to file a personal bond of Rs. 2000. 00 and one reliable local surety of the like amount for keeping peace and good behaviors for a period of two years and in the event of any breach in the conditions of the bond, to serve out the sentences referred to above and thereby confirmed and judgment and order of the trial court dated 25th February, 1985 passed in Criminal Case No. 3020 of 1976 (State of U. P. v. Ranjit Singh). The learned Additional Sessions Judge also reduced the sentences under Sections 466 and 468 I. P. C. from three years R. I. to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500. 00. The facts giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are as follows:
(2) THE revisionist accused was working as Personal Assistant (Second Man) of the then Honble Mr. Justice Jag Mohal Lal Sinha of this High Court. In those days bail applications used to be heard by the said Honble Judge in Court No. 16. A criminal case (State of U. P. v. Khalawan and others) under section 302 I. P. C. was pending in the court of the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Allahabad. An order dated 10th December, 1971 granting bail to the co-accused Khelawan was alleged to have been passed by then Honble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha in the said criminal case. The accused - Khelawan-wasordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount. That order was received by the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Allahabad. Consequently he released the co-accused Khalwan after his furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount, on the basis of the said bail order. The co-accused Kalloo in the said criminal case was already released on bail. The co-accused Kalloo contacted one Sri Atma Nand Mishra, who was also working in this High Court, with regard to the release of the other accused on bail and requested him for obtaining a copy of the bail order regarding other accused Khelawan. Consequently Atma Nand Mishra had a talk to Shri Kunj Behari Lal Bhatnagar, Bench Secretary, at his residence in that regard. Shri Kunj Behari Lal Bhatnagar told him (Atma Nand Mishra) that he would tell him about the same after verifying the relevant register of the Court, next day. Sri Bhatnagar looked into the relevant register regarding bail application, next day, but he found that there was no endorsement any where regarding the passing of any such bail order in respect of the accused Khelawan. He called for the bail application from the office and on the receipt of the same, he found that the order was not in his hand writing nor did he put his signature. The order, however contained the initial of the them Henble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha. There arose suspicion in his (Bhatnagar s) mind. Consequently he placed the aforesaid record before the then Honble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha. The Honble judge came to the conclusion that the alleged bail order dated 10th December, 1971 was not passed by him nor did he put his signature initial thereto. But the said order was, according to him, prepared after committing forgery. He showed the bail order to the Bench Secretary, Sri Kunj Behari Lal Bhatnagar, Syed Nasir Raza and his both personal Assistants Sri Kamala Prasad Asthana and Sri Ranjit Singh. He had suspicion that Sri Ranjit Singh had written tile said bail order. Sri Ranjit Singh had, however denied the same. The then Hontble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan. Lal Sinha wrote a letter dated 16th December, 1971 to the Registrar of the Honble Court in regard to the above facts and directed him (Registrar) to obtain information from the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Allahabad whether the accused Khelawan was released on bail. If the accused Khelawan was not released, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) be directed to wait for further orders. The aforesaid bail application of accused Khelawan was ordered to be listed on 17th December, 1971. On that day, the then Honble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha passed the following order: The order dated 10/12/1971 purporting to grant bail to Khelawan S/o Ram Avtar resident of Meerapur, P. S. Khuldabad, District Allahabad is not a genuine order. Sri, R. P. Agarwal Advocate, who purports to have signed the application, made a statement before this Court that he did not present this application nor was it ever argued by him before this Court. Enquiry has already been ordered. Registrar may send a letter to the A. D. M. (J.) Allahabad forthwith to cancel the bonds said to have been furnished by the applicant and secure arrest of Khelawan. He may be sent thereafter to jail custody. Let this file be now sent to the Registrar, who is also seized of the enquiry, in a sealed cover.
(3) SRI. B. C. Jauhari, the then Registrar of this Court, reported the matter through a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, U. P. Criminal Investigation Department, Lucknow, on the basis of which a chick (First Information Report) was prepared and a case was registered against the accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh under Sections 417,420,466,467, and 468 I. P. C. The investigation ensued and after the completion of the investigation into the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against him. The charges under Sections 417, 466, 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. were ultimately framed against him. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including the then Honble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha and relied upon certain documents in support of the case against the accused-revisionist, Ranjit Singh.
(4) THE Revisionist Ranjit Singh pleaded not guilty. He has stated that all the allegations relating to the charges leveled against him in particular are wholly wrong are incorrect He has asserted that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity and that the witnesses have also deposed against him for that reason. He has emphatically denied having committed the alleged forgery in respect of the preparation of the disputed bill order. He has specifically stated that Sri R. P. Agarwal Advocate and Sri Kunj Behari Bhatnagar, the then Bench Secretary have committed the alleged forgery in collusion with each other. He has, however not adduced any oral evidence in support of his contentions.
(5) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad convicted the accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh under Sections 417, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 417 I. P. C. , two years rigorous imprisonment under section 420 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment each under sections 466, 467 and 468 I. P. C. , in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 3020 of 1976 (State of U. P. v. Ranjit Singh).
(6) THE accused revisionist filed appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1985 (Ranjit Singh v. State of U. P.), against the above judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The then learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, disposed of the said criminal appeal vide his impugned and order while partly allowing and partly dismissing the appeal as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order, the revision is accused Ranjit Singh preferred this revision against the same:
(7) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The first and the second charges framed against the accused-revisionist on 8th May, 1976 appear to be relevant for the purposes of this revision and, therefore, the same are reproduced as under: Firstly, that you on the 10th day of December 1971, in the capacity of Steno to the Honble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha, prepared bail order by making forgery in the record, and thereby committed an offence punishable D/s. 466 I. P. C. Secondly, that you on the same day, time and place committed forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purposes of cheating, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 468 I. P. C. T
(8) THE accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh, cannot legally speaking, be held to have committed the alleged forgery. Section 463 I. P. C. , which defines forgery is reproduced as under: 463 Forgery - Whoever makes any false document or part of a document 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. T The relevant portion of section 464 I. P. C. appears to be necessary in this connection. This section reads, inter alia, as under: 464. Making a false document:- A person is said to make a false document First - who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals, or execute a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed Secondly
(9) A bare reading of the above sections would show that a document can be legally a document only when it is made, signed and sealed by one. But the revisionist - accused has not, in the instant case signed the disputed bail order. Nor is there any evidence to prove that he has made the alleged initial of the then Honble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha, below the bail order in question. These facts cannot be said to be in dispute on the basis of evidence on record. In the absence of the signature or initial of the accused revisionist Ranjit Singh below the bail order and in the absence of the alleged initial of the then Honble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha having been made by him (revisionist-accused), the bail order cannot be said to constitute a document. In the absence of a document, the commission of the offence of forgery cannot be envisaged. Section 23 I. P. C. read as under: 23. Wrongful gains- Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Wrongful loss - Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Gaining wrongfully: Losing wrongfully - A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.
(10) SECTIONS 24 and 25 I. P. C. are respectively reproduced as under: 24. Dishonestly - whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. 25. Fraudulently: - A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
(11) THERE is no evidence on record to show as to whom the revisionist-accused Ranjit Singh had intentionally caused wrongful gain or wrongful loss by preparing the bail order in question. Similarly there is no evidence on record to show as to whom he had intentionally defrauded by making bail order fraudulently. In other words, there is nothing on record to establish that the revisionist accused had made a false document dishonestly or fraudulently and, therefore, the question of his having committed forgery does not arise.
(12) I he learned VII Additional Sessions Judge has made the following observations at page 53 of the typed copy of his impugned judgment and order, which is on record, as under: No doubt expert has not given any opinion about the alleged forged signatures of the Honble Judge but keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 464 I. P. C. the accused can be held liable for making the part document fraudulently. Sections 463 and 464 I. P. C. , if read together, would show that they do not say anything about a part document. Therefore, the above observations made by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge is against the law.
(13) THE charges under Sections 466 and 468 I. P. C. as framed against the revisionist-accused have already been quoted. While referring to the above charges, the learned counsel for the revisionist- accused has argued that these charges are vague and ambiguous in several respects and that the bail order in question does not constitute a documents as the same was not signed by the accused- revisionist and, therefore, the revision is accused cannot be convicted under sections 466 or 468 I. P. C. or sentenced there under. His contention does not appear to be devoid of force.
(14) IN the result the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The revisionist accused is acquitted of the charges under Sections 466 and 468 I. P. C. as well.
(15) IT is not out of place to mention that the incident took place on 10th December, 1971. The charge-sheet was submitted against the accused revisionist nearly four years after the incident. The case has been pending against him for over two decades. He has been placed under suspension. He must have been reduced to a pauper. Not only this, but he must have also suffered pangs of poverty for such a long period, during these hard days. His poor plight can, therefore, be anybodys guess. In view of all this, the conscience of the court dictates it to categorically express that the grant of benefit of Section 4 of the U. P. First offender's Act by the then learned VII Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment and order cannot be treated as punishment in relation to the revisionist accused Ranjit Singh suspension and the revisionist cannot be treated as suspended from service. He will, on the other hand be deemed to have been incontinuous service without any break. He will, therefore, be immediately paid his full pay and D. A. etc. during the period of his suspension in compliance with the observations made in this judgment. Revision allowed.