R.S. Pandey vs The State

Dharam Veer, J.—This appeal, preferred u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.06.1989 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun, in C.B.I. Case No. 5/83, CBI v. R.S. Pandey and Anr., whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant R.S. Pandey under Sections 420/468 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and also u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The appellant was awarded sentence of one year�s R.I. u/s 420 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six month''s further R.I. The appellant/accused R.S. Pandey was further awarded sentence of one year�s R.I. u/s 468 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for further six months''. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo one year''s R.I. u/s 5(2) of the Act and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months'' further R.I. All the sentences were also directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant R.S. Pandey was acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 120B of IPC. Co-accused S.K. Garg was found not guilty u/s 120B IPC, 420 IPC, 471 IPC r/w 468 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Act and was acquitted of the same.

I have heard Sri Asif Ali, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Additional G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that appellant/accused R.S. Pandey while posted and functioning as Assistant Spinning Master cum Maintenance-In-charge, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur under the management of National Textile Corporation during the year 1981, entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons with the object of committing offence of cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy following acts of omissions and commissions were committed:

The sanction letter purporting to have been processed by P.W. 2 G.C. Jain, Spinning Master and A.K. Srivastava, Production Manager and issued by P.W. 9 O.S. Bhatia, Manager Finance and Accounts were forged by appellant/accused R.S. Pandey in his own handwriting showing the sanction of boarding and lodging charges in favour of the representatives of three erect or firms namely M/s Star Marketing & Services Ltd., Delhi, M/s Standard Engineering Company & M/s Texmaco Ltd. Delhi, for Rs. 1550/-, Rs. 1300/- and Rs. 1050/- respectively.

On the basis of the said forged sanction letter the payment amounting to Rs. 3,900/- was made to the fictitious persons on behalf of the said three firms. The payees at the time of payment were identified by appellant/accused R.S. Pandey himself. In fact neither any such payment was due to the aforesaid three firms nor was sanctioned by the Mills.

In this way, appellant/accused R.S. Pandey in conspiracy with some unknown persons by corrupt or by illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as public servant caused pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 3900/- and cheated National Textile Corporation, Lord Krishna Textile Mills Saharanpur, a Govt. of India Undertaking. On the basis of this FIR lodged by Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ Dehradun on 9.3.1982 at 10:30 A.M., the case was registered against the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey u/s 120B/420/ 468/471 IPC and u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act, the copy of FIR is Ex.Ka-66. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri S.R. Jayaswal, Deputy S.P. During the course of investigation, the I.O. collected the relevant papers and also taken signatures for the handwriting expert and also prepared seizure memos, i.e. Ex.Ka-67/1 to Ex.Ka-67/6. The I.O. also took the specimen signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain Ex.Ka-37, Ex.Ka.37/1 and Ex.Ka-37/2; specimen signatures of P.W.5 Chander Shekher Bhardwaj Ex.Ka-58/4 to Ex.Ka-58/8; specimen writings/signatures of P.W. 4 U.P. Singh Ex.Ka-59/1 to Ex.Ka-59/6; specimen writings/signatures of P.W. 7 S.N. Gupta Ex.Ka-60/1 to Ex.Ka-60/5; specimen signatures of P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia Ex.Ka-65/1 to Ex.Ka-65/3; specimen writings/signatures of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra Ex.Ka-68/1 to Ex.Ka-68/3; specimen writing/signature of P.W.6 Antony Jacob Ex.Ka-69/1 to Ex.Ka-69/5; specimen writings/signatures of appellant/accused R.S. Pandey i.e. Ex.Ka.1 to Ex.Ka-18. The I.O. during the course of investigation also took the sanction for prosecution of appellant/accused R.S. Pandey from Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation (UP) Ltd., Kanpur, that sanction is Ex.Ka.22. The I.O. during the course of investigation, apart from other relevant documents, also took in his possession the disputed documents i.e. Ex.Ka-23, Ex.Ka.24, Ex.Ka-25, Ex.Ka.26, Ex.Ka-27 and Ex.Ka-28. The documents of the case were also sent to Government Examiner for the purpose of examination and Sri R.P. Singh, Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents and Sri D.D. Goel, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, submitted their joint report, i.e. Ex.Ka-62. P.W. 8 D.D. Goel, Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, also given the reasons for his opinion by his report, i.e. Ex.Ka-63. After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East) Dehradun against the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey and one another co-accused S.K. Garg u/s 120B/420/468/471 IPC and also u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act, that charge sheet is Ex.Ka-70.

On 22.06.1984, the charge was framed against the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun u/s 120B I.P.C.; u/s 420 I.P.C.; u/s 468 I.P.C. and u/s 5(1)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant/accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The charge was also framed against the coaccused S.K. Garg u/s 120B I.P.C.; u/s 420 r/w 109 I.P.C.; u/s 471 r/w Section 468 I.P.C. and u/s 5(1)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of the Act.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 R.P. Sharma, Secretary to Chairman cum Managing Director, National Textile Corporation, U.P. Kanpur; P.W.2 is G.C. Jain, Spinning Superintendent, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur; P.W.3 is Ramesh Chand, Maintenance Supervisor, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur; P.W.4 is Uday Prakash Singh, Senior Sales and Service Engineer, New Standard Engineering Company, Goregaon Mumbai; P.W.5 Chandra Shekhar Bhardwaj, Engineer Star Marketing and Service Limited, New Delhi; P.W.6 Antony Jacob, Account Clerk, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur; P.W.7 S.N. Gupta, Erection Engineer, M.A.C. Limited, New Delhi, P.W.8 D.D. Goel, A.G.E. & Q.D.; P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia, Chief Finance Manager, National Thermal Power, Allahabad and P.W.10, S.R. Jaiswal, Additional Director Vigilance/I.O. of the case.

Afterthatthestatementofthe appellant/accused R.S. Pandey was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to him in question and answer form. In reply, he has admitted that in the year 1981, he was posted in Unit Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur as Assistant Spinning Master, but he has denied the rest of the allegations made against him. In oral evidence he has examined D.W.1 Sushil Kumar and D.W.5 Dr. H.L. Bami. D.W. 2 S.C. Sachdeva, D.W.3 Praduman Kumar & D.W.4 Harbansh Lal were the oral witness got examined by co-accused S.K. Garg. The appellant/accused in support of documentary evidence produced documents i.e. Ex. Kha and Ex.D.E.-1.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 1.06.1989 has convicted the appellant R.S. Pandey under Sections 420/468 of I.P.C. and also u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947). The appellant was awarded sentence of one year�s R.I. u/s 420 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six month�s R.I. The appellant was further awarded sentence of one year�s R.I. u/s 468 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for further six months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo one year�s R.I. u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months� further R.I. All the sentences were also directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant R.S. Pandey was acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 120B of IPC. Co-accused S.K. Garg was found not guilty u/s 120B IPC, 420 IPC, 471 IPC r/w 468 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Act and he was acquitted of the same. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 01.06.1989, the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey has come up in appeal.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 R.P. Sharma, Secretary to Chairman cum Managing Director, who has been examined to prove the sanction order for prosecution of the appellant accused R.S. Pandey and also of co-accused S.K. Garg, being a public servant, the sanction is Ex.Ka.22. The sanction was given and accorded by B.S. Sandhu, Chairman cum Managing Director and he typed the letter on the dictation of B.S. Sandhu. Sri B.S. Sandhu accorded the sanction after reading all the connected papers of this case.

P.W.2 is G.C. Jain, who was the then Spinning Master in Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur and was examined to prove that all the three bills i.e. Exs.Ka.23, Ka.25 & Ka.27 were under his forged signatures. He was also said to be acquainted with the signatures of appellant/accused R.S. Pandey, who was working under him. He has also stated that no work was undertaken by P.W.5 Chandra Shekher, P.W.7 S.N. Gupta and P.W.4 U.P. Singh during the relevant period and forged bills were prepared in their names and false payments were made in their favour. On all these forged bills, the handwriting and signatures were made by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey.

P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra, Maintenance Supervisor, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur, who has been examined to prove that signatures on Bills Exs.Ka.25 and Ka.27 were forged by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey, as he had not verified the work of any person and the handwriting and signatures on both the bills were not genuine but were forged by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey.

P.W.4 Uday Prakash Singh, Senior Sales and Service Engineer, New Standard Engineering Company, Goregaon Mumbai, who has been examined to prove that bill Ex.Ka.27 shown to be written in his name was a false and forged one as he has never undertaken the work of the Lord Krishan Textile Mill, Saharanpur during the relevant period for which the bills were prepared under his false name. He further stated that he had not put his signatures on the payment voucher i.e. Ex.Ka.28 and his signature had been forged by somebody else as he did not receive any payment. This voucher was verified under the signature of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey while the payment of any such amount was denied by this witness and this witness has alleged that his signatures were forged.

P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj, Engineer Star Marketing and Services Limited, New Delhi, who has been examined to prove that he had not prepared any bill i.e. Ex.Ka.23 in his writing and his signatures on the bills were forged. He also stated that he had not done any work during the relevant period for the Mill nor he had claimed any payment and the voucher prepared in his name i.e. Ex.Ka.24 was forged one. He further stated that signatures under the name of Chandra Shekher on voucher Ex.Ka.24 was alleged to be forged by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey himself and the same has been opined by the Government Expert P.W.8 D.D. Goel under his signatures on the said voucher (Ex.Ka.24). He has further stated that the signatures in his name were forged by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey.

P.W.6 Antony Jacob, Account Clerk, Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur, who has stated that he prepared all the three vouchers on the basis of bills presented before him and he also proved the said vouchers. He has also stated that all the three bills i.e. Ex.Ka.23, Ex.Ka.25 & Ex.Ka.27 were brought by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey and he had verified those bills. Therefore, he prepared the vouchers on the basis of the said bills.

P.W.7 S.N. Gupta, Erection Engineer, M.A.C. Limited, New Delhi, has stated that he had not claimed any payment for any work done for the Mill and the Bill Ex.Ka.25 written and prepared in his name was forged. He has also denied that he had taken any payment from the Mill on the basis of the voucher Ex.Ka.26 and alleged that the signatures on the said voucher was forged one.

P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Calcutta, Government Handwriting Expert, who has been examined to prove that all the three bills were prepared under the forged signatures of the persons in whose names they were written. He also stated that with regard to the opinion of the case, he also prepared a report i.e. Ex.Ka-62 and he also proved the same. He also stated that besides him, these documents were also examined by Sri R.P. Singh, the then G.E.D., who also arrived at the same conclusion and Sri R.P. Singh also signed on the said report. He also stated that he also gave his detailed reasons for arriving at the said opinion, those reasons were marked as Ex.Ka-63. It has also been proved by him that signatures of P.W.4 U.P. Singh on Exs.Ka-27 and Ka-28, signatures of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher on Exs.Ka-23 and Ka-24 as well as signatures of P.W.7 S.N. Gupta on Exs.Ka-25 and Ka-26, were forged. It had also been stated that signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia were also forged on the above mentioned three forged bills as per the expert evidence arrived at after taking specimen, admitted and disputed signatures of those persons. He also stated that after comparing all the signatures and handwritings, he prepared the expert report i.e. Ex.Ka.62 and he also gave the reasons for his opinion, i.e. Ex.Ka.63.

P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia, Chief Finance Manager, National Thermal Power, Allahabad, the then Manager Finance & Accounts of Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur, who has been examined to prove that his signatures were also forged on all the bills.

P.W.10 R.S. Jaiswal, I.O. of the case, who after the investigation and examining all the documents as referred above submitted the charge sheet i.e. Ex.Ka.70 in the court against the appellant/accused and one another co-accused S.K. Garg.

After that the statement of the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to him in question and answer form. In reply, he has admitted that in the year 1981, he was posted in Unit Lord Krishna Textile Mill, Saharanpur as Assistant Spinning Master. But he has denied the other allegations made against him. In oral evidence he has examined D.W.1 Sushil Kumar and D.W.5 Dr. H.L. Bami. D.W.2 S.C. Sachdeva, D.W.3 Praduman Kumar & D.W.4 Harbansh Lal were the oral witness got examined by coaccused S.K. Garg. The appellant/accused in support of documentary evidence produced on document i.e. Ex.Kha and Ex.D.E.-1.

D.W.1 is Sushil Kumar, who has been examined by the appellant/accused R.S. Pandey in his defence. The evidence of this witness does not create any doubt in the prosecution story, as such the same is not at all helpful to the appellant/accused.

D.W.5 Dr. H.L. Bami has also been produced on behalf of the appellant/accused to prove that the signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain, Spinning Master and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia, Chief Finance Manager were not false but genuine signatures and these witnesses have not spoken the truth before the court. The report given by this defence witness is contrary to the report given by P.W.8 D.D. Goel. The report of P.W.8 D.D. Goel is very explanatory and based on the scientific reason. Therefore, the report submitted by this witness is not at all helpful to the appellant.

The prosecution story is based on three vouchers and three bills which may be detailed as under:

Voucher Ex.Ka.24 was prepared in the name of M/s. Star Marketing and Services Limited and payment for Rs. 1550/- dated 10.08.1981 was made in the name of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj.

Voucher Ex.Ka.26 was prepared in favour of P.W.7 S.N. Gupta and the payment for Rs. 1050/- dated 14.08.1981 was made to him.

Voucher Ex.Ka.28 was prepared in favour of P.W.4 Uday Prakash Singh and the payment for Rs. 1300/- dated 14.08.1981 was made to him.

All these three vouchers were prepared on the basis of three bills written in the form of letters addressed to the Manager, Lord Krishna Textile Mills in the name of fictitious persons.

Bill Ex.Ka.23 was prepared in the name of Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj stating that the payment of boarding and lodging charges amounting to Rs. 1550/- be made for the work done in the said Mill. This work and stay was verified by appellant/accused R.S. Pandey under his signatures. It was alleged by the prosecution that signatures of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwarj were forged by appellant/accused R.S. Pandey. Signature of P.W.2 G.C. Jain was also forged on the said bill. It was also alleged that no any person in the name of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher on behalf of Star Marketing and Services Limited had ever come to the Mill nor taken any work for contract in the said Mill and the payment in the name of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher was also falsely shown in the name of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher.

Bill Ex.Ka.25 was written in the name of P.W.7 S.N. Gupta stating that erection work according to sanction contract was done by him and boarding and lodging charges amounting to Rs. 1050/- was claimed by this person as an Erector of M/s Texmaco Ltd., Delhi. It was alleged by the prosecution that the signatures of P.W.7 S.N. Gupta were forged, as the said person had never come for doing any work for the company. It was alleged by the prosecution that this bill was verified in the name of fictitious persons and the name of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra and this signature of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra was forged by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey himself. Besides this, appellant-accused R.S. Pandey also alleged to have forged the signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and the Bill Ex.Ka.25 was actually prepared falsely by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey himself.

Bill Ex.Ka.27 was the third bill which was alleged to have been falsely prepared by appellant accused R.S. Pandey under the false name of P.W.4 Udai Prakash Singh. In the said bill, it was stated that work for the Mill was done on contract on behalf of Erector New Standard Engineering Company, Goregaon Bombay and a sum of Rs. 1300/- was claimed from the Lord Krishan Textile Mill, Sahranpur. It was also alleged to be a false verification under the false name of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. Further, the signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain was also forged on the said bill and P.W.4 U.P. Singh was actually a fictitious person in whose name payment was claimed from the above-said Mill. Further, all the three vouchers were prepared on the basis of above mentioned three false bills which were verified by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey himself under his own signatures.

Learned amicus curiae for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt in the above said evidence. From the evidence as discussed above that bills Exs.Ka.23, Ka.25 & Ka.27 and three vouchers Ex.Ka.24, Ka.26 & Ka.28 are base of the case. From a perusal of the bill Ex.Ka.23, it is ample clear that the said Bill was written in the name of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj and was addressed to the Manager of the Mill, whereby a sum of Rs. 1550/- was claimed. That appellant-accused R.S. Pandey was said to have verified the work in his writing and under his signatures. P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj has been produced from the side of the prosecution who has stated that this bill Ex.Ka.23 was not prepared by him and he has not visited the Mill during the said period. P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Govt. Expert has also given his opinion that signature of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj was forged by someone. He has also stated that the writings with regard to the verification of the work done by P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj in the bill Ex.Ka.23 was under the handwriting of the appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. He has also given the opinion that the signature in reference to the verification was done by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey. There is clear evidence of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia that their signatures were also forged on the same bill and same evidence is corroborated by Scientific Expert P.W.8 D.D. Goel. P.W.6 Antony Jacob, who prepared the vouchers on the basis of bill, has stated that connected papers were brought by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey on the basis of which he prepared the said vouchers and payments were made to appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia, the officers of the Mill and of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj coupled with the expert evidence of P.W.8 D.D. Goel, clearly prove that this bill Ex.Ka.23 was falsely prepared and the verification of the same was done by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey under his signatures dishonestly. Voucher Ex.Ka.24 was prepared in the name of Star Marketing and Services Limited for Rs. 1550/- on the basis of bill Ex.Ka.23. It has already been discussed above that Bill Ex.Ka.23 was totally false and thereby payment by this voucher Ex.Ka.24 was also made false. From a perusal of this Bill Ex.Ka.23 and voucher Ex.Ka-24, it is evident that payment was shown to have been made to P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj while this person appeared in the court and denied his signatures on the said voucher. P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj has also alleged that the signature on the said voucher was forged one. The payment on the basis of signature in the name of the payee was verified by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey under his own signature which is also duly proved by the evidence of P.W.8 D.D. Goel. Therefore, it is proved that both these bills and vouchers were prepared falsely and payments were made to the fictitious persons on the verification of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. It is also proved that the signatures of P.W.5 Chandra Shekher Bhardwaj were forged on the bill as well as on the vouchers and the same was falsely verified by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. In this way, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant-accused R.S. Pandey has falsely and dishonestly prepared the bill Ex.Ka.23 and voucher Ex.Ka.24 and misappropriated Rs. 1,550/- and has committed a criminal breach of trust and has also committed cheating intentionally and dishonestly.

The bill i.e. Ex.Ka.25 was prepared in the name of S.N. Gupta and the prosecution produced P.W.7 S.N. Gupta, who categorically stated that he had not prepared the said bill and his signature was also forged. P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra also appeared in the court and made a specific statement that he did not verify any such work and his signature was forged. He was also well acquainted with the signature and handwriting of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey and therefore he made a specific statement that his signature was forged by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. Besides the signatures of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra, there were signatures of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia and both these witnesses have stated that their signatures were forged on the said bill Ex.Ka.25. P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Government Handwriting Expert, also corroborated the testimony of both the officers that their signatures on the Bill Ex.Ka.25 were not genuine signatures but were forged by someone. Voucher Ex.Ka.26 was prepared on the basis of the said false bill wherein payment was shown to have been made to P.W.7 S.N. Gupta. P.W.7 S.N. Gupta has specifically denied the receipt of any such payment and alleged that his signature was forged and he had not received any such payment. Further, the payment in the name of P.W.7 S.N. Gupta was verified under the writing and signatures of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey and P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Government Handwriting Expert, clearly stated that the writings of verification and signature on this voucher i.e. Ex.Ka.26 were made by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. It would not be out of place to mention here that the expert from the side of defence i.e. D.W.5 Dr. H.L. Bami remained silent on the opinion of the prosecution expert and said nothing about the verification and signatures made by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey and opined by the prosecution expert on all the three vouchers as well as writings on all the three bills. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 G.C. Jain and P.W.9 O.S. Bhatia when nothing has come in their evidence which may create any doubt in their evidence. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that bill Ex.Ka.25 and voucher Ex.Ka.26 were prepared falsely under the forged signatures of payees by appellant/accused R.S. Pandey. In this way, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant-accused R.S. Pandey has falsely and dishonestly prepared the bill Ex.Ka.23 and voucher Ex.Ka.24 and misappropriated Rs. 1,050/- and has committed a criminal breach of trust and has also committed cheating intentionally and dishonestly. In this way, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant-accused R.S. Pandey has misappropriated Rs. 1,050/- and has committed a criminal breach of trust and has also committed cheating intentionally and dishonestly.

Same is the case with regard to bill Ex.Ka.27 which was prepared in the name of P.W.4 U.P. Singh and the same was verified in the name of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra. Both these persons P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra and P.W.4 U.P. Singh have denied their signatures on the Bill Ex.Ka.27. The evidence of P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Government Expert is very much clear that the signatures of P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra and P.W.4 U.P. Singh were forged by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. Even, P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra who was well acquainted with the signatures of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey clearly deposed before the court that his signatures and verification words were actually forged by appellantaccused R.S. Pandey. The voucher Ex.Ka.28 was also prepared falsely in the name of P.W.4 U.P. Singh as proved by him and he has alleged that his signatures were forged on the said voucher as he did not received any such payment. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the verification with regard to payment along with the signatures were made by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey on the said voucher Ex.Ka.28 and the same is also corroborated by the expert evidence of P.W.8 D.D. Goel. P.W.8 D.D. Goel, Government Expert has clearly stated that signatures on all the three vouchers as well as the verification made on the bills were in the hands of appellant-accused R.S. Pandey and the same was not contradicted even by the defence expert D.W.5 Dr. H.M Bami and thereby nothing is left to doubt that all the three bills as well as the vouchers were prepared falsely under the forged signatures by appellant-accused R.S. Pandey. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant-accused R.S. Pandey has misappropriated Rs. 1,300/- and has committed a criminal breach of trust and has also committed cheating intentionally and dishonestly.

Thus, as per the evidence discussed above, the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant-accused R.S. Pandey beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C. & also u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order dated 01.06.1989 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption U.P. (East) Dehradun and there is no reason to interfere with the said judgment and order.

For the reasons as recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused R.S. Pandey is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed.

The sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused in connection with the aforesaid crime during the period of trial or appeal, shall be adjusted after verifying from the records.

Let a copy of this order be sent back to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance of the order.