Karnataka High Court
Parashuram S/O Ranappa Pawar Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2018
1 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3663/2011
BETWEEN:
1. PARASHURAM S/O RANAPPA PAWAR
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: FDA IN MILIND COLLEGE
R/O: SUNDAR NAGAR
GULBARGA.
2. SHAMRAO S/O SIDRAMAPPA UDAGI
AGE: 51 YEARS
OCC: PHYSICAL INSTRUCTOR
IN MILIND COLLEGE
R/O: KANTA LAYOUT
GULBARGA.
... APPELLANTS
(By SRI.SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BRAHMAPUR P.S.
GULBARGA
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP)
2 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
CRIMINAL APPEAL AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT NO.1
AND 2 FOR ALL ALLEGED OFFENCES BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY IV ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA, IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.35/2008 DATED 30.08.2011 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B DATED
25.05.2007 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1505/2000
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND
JMFC GULBARGA FOR THE REASONS STATED
ABOVE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal of accused Nos.1 and 2 arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2011 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No.35/2008. By impugned judgment and order, the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and order passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Gulbarga in C.C.1505/2000 dated 25.05.2007 acquitting accused 3 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 478 read with Section 34 IPC. Further, the First Appellate Court convicted Accused No.1 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and sentenced them for each of the offences for simple imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant will be referred to hereafter as accused. The trial Court tried accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, on the basis of charge sheet filed by Brahamapur Police in Crime No.38/1996 of their police station. The said charge sheet was filed on the basis of complaint of PW.1 Ishwar.M.Ingan as per Ex.P.1. 4 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 Initially, the said complaint was registered only against Accused No.1.
3. On the basis of further statement allegedly given by PW.1, Accused No.2 Shamrao Udagi, Accused No.3 Chandrakant Katak were also included in the case. However, while filing of charge sheet Investigation Officer dropped Accused No.3 Chandrakant Katak.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
That PW.1 is the Principal, Accused No.1 is the First Division Assistant and Accused No.2 is the Physical Education Instructor in Milind Pre- University College, Gulbarga. Accused No.1 in discharge of his duties was entrusted with Cheque Book, Accounts Book and Pass Book of the Institution. At the time of verification, he found that two cheques bearing No.460549 and 460550 were missing. On 09.02.1996 on Accused No.1 5 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 returning to work, when complainant enquired him about missing cheques, Accused No.1 gave evasive reply stating that cheques might have been fallen in the same drawer and to search for them. On 13.02.1996 on verification it was found that those cheques were presented on 08.02.1996 and 12.02.1996 and total cash of Rs.49,200/- was drawn from drawee Bank i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Super Market Branch. Further, on realising that PW.1 filed complaint alleging forgery and cheating, criminal breach of trust, etc. On registration of FIR, PW.1 gave further statement against the accused stating that all the accused in collusion with each other have drawn those cheques. PW.7 registered the FIR and issued requisitions to the Bank and college for furnishing the cheques and other relevant documents. He seized the cheques in question on 25.01.1997 under the Mahazar Ex.P5 in the presence of 6 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 panchas PWs.2 and 5, recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the sample handwriting of accused Nos.1 to 3 and sent the records to the handwriting experts for opinion. Then, PW.8 conducted further investigation, received FSL report and filed the charge sheet.
5. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and secured accused Nos.1 and 2. On hearing both the parties, the Magistrate framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and recorded plea of the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, the trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P46 were marked. The accused were examined with reference to the incriminating materials.
6. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, by the judgment and order dated 25.05.2007 7 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 acquitted the accused of the charges on the following grounds:
(i) There is delay in filing the compliant;
(ii) Though PW.1 says that he came to know about missing of cheques on 9.02.1996, he did not file any complaint and issue instructions to the Bank and take any active steps in respect of missing cheques. That creates doubt about his conduct ;
(iii) The entrustment of the custody of the cheques is not proved by cogent and consistent evidence;
(iv) The seizure of the cheques itself smacks doubt and they were not seized from the proper custody i.e., Bank;
(v) Despite several requisitions by the Investigating Officer to the Bank Manager to produce those cheques and other relevant records, he did not produce them for 8 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 considerable length of time. Thereby the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful;
(vi) The prosecution evidence says that PW.1 himself produced the cheques before the Investigating Officer. The custody of those cheques is not explained by PW.1 though they did not proceed from the proper custody;
(vii) PW.4 - Deputy Manager of the Bank though states that his officer has handed over those cheques to the Investigating Officer, he does not name the said officer and the said officer was not cited as witness;
(viii) The Bank officials who passed the cheques do not identify accused Nos.1 and 2;
(ix) To attract Section 420 IPC, no case of inducement to deliver cheques is made out.
Therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 420 IPC does not sustain;
9 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
(x) PW.4 the Manger of the Bank states that he passed the cheques on verification of signatures on the same and satisfying that they were the signatures of PW.1 and the Secretary;
(xi) PW.6 states he cannot identify the cheques and he does not know who issued those cheques and has not expressed any view on the matter;
(xii) The sample signatures of PW.1 and the Secretary of the institution were not taken and not sent to the experts for opinion;
(xiii) PW.10 - Handwriting Expert does not give opinion in respect of the disputed signatures on Exs.P2 and P3; and
(xiv) Having regard to such lacuna in the prosecution evidence, the conviction cannot be recorded on the sole evidence of handwriting expert without any corroboration. 10 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
7. The State challenged the said judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced accused on the following grounds:
(i) In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused has suggested that while going on educational tour, he handed over the cheques and cheque book, that itself shows the entrustment ;
(ii) PW.6 has identified the handwriting of accused Nos.1 and 2 and PW.1. In Ex.P19 - Register of Issue of Cheques Serial No.1 to 155 entries are in the handwriting of the accused. That goes to show that accused No.1 was in the custody of Ex.P19 and cheque book of the college ;
(iii) Having regard to such evidence, even in the absence of proof of any specific work allotment 11 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 order, it should have been held that the entrustment is proved ;
(iv) Trial court has committed error in finding fault with PW.1 in delaying the filing of complaint;
(v) The evidence of handwriting expert PW.10 and his opinion Ex.P22(a) and (b) prove that Exs.P2 and P3 are in the handwriting of the accused;
(vi) Comparison of the admitted signatures of the accused in Ex.P7 and the signatures on Exs.P2 and 3 show the resemblance in the signatures on Exs.P2 and P3 and the signatures on Ex.P7; and
(vii) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence placed by the prosecution properly.
8. Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused assails the order of the first appellate Court on the following grounds:
(i) The Trial Court after detailed discussion of the evidence adduced before it found that the evidence 12 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 adduced is insufficient to convict the accused but, the first appellate Court by cryptic order reversed the same without assigning any sustainable reasons;
(ii) In an appeal against the order of acquittal, the first appellate Court should be slow in interference. Unless it is shown that the order of acquittal is per se illegal, the same cannot be interfered only because another view is possible;
(iii) The very fact of PW.1 first implicating only accused No.1, then implicating accused No.2 and again later implicating accused No.3 goes to show that his evidence is shaky;
(iv) The first appellate Court failed to note that PW.1 being the responsible person and principal of college does not probe into the matter, delayed the filing of the complaint and did not stop payment;
(v) The first appellate Court has committed error in relying on the suggestion made by the defence 13 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 counsel regarding custody of the cheques and overlooking the fact of initial burden of proving the charge is on the prosecution by leading cogent and consistent evidence;
(vi) The first appellate Court also failed to note that there was no evidence with regard to entrustment of the cheques to the accused by any work allotment order and PW.6 deposes that he could not trace any such work allotment order;
(vii) The first appellate Court failed to note that none of the witnesses says that accused induced PW.1 or any other custodian of the cheques to deliver them. Therefore, the conviction under Section 420 IPC is totally unsustainable;
(viii) So far as forgery, the first appellate Court clearly overlooked the evidence of handwriting expert PW.10 and the finding of the Trial Court that PW.10 has not given any finding on the disputed signatures on Exs.P2 and P3;14 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
(ix) The first appellate Court also failed to note that the Secretary of the Society states that he does not suspect the accused;
(x) The first appellate Court further failed to note that in the absence of corroborating evidence, the experts opinion cannot be the sole base for conviction; and
(xi) The first appellate Court has committed grave error in comparing the signatures and arriving at conclusion without any opportunity to the accused in that regard.
9. In support of his contention, he relies upon the following judgments:
1. Thiruvengandam Pillin vs. Navaneethammal and Another -
(2008) 4 SCC 530;
2. Murarilal vs. State of M.P. - AIR 1980 SC 531;
3. Sukh Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - 2016 - CRI.L.J.4146.15 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
10. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to support the impugned judgment on the following grounds:
(i) The statement of the accused itself shows he handed over Exs.P2 and P3 to PW.1, thus he was the custodian of the same before that;
(ii) In the case of breach of trust delay in filing the complaint does not assume significance as parties are in fiduciary relationship with each other; and
(iii) The expert's evidence and the evidence of PW.1 prove the charges against the accused.
11. Having regard to the rival contention, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and order of the first appellate Court convicting the appellants for the offences punishable 16 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC is sustainable in law?"
12. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, what should be the approach of the Court has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka - (2007) 4 SCC 415 as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may 17 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court 18 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, it is clear that unless it was shown that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was per se illegal or there were compelling reasons to reverse the trial court's judgment, the first appellate Court's order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained.
14 The case of the prosecution depends upon;:
i) the evidence of the complainant PW.1 ; 19 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
ii) the recovery of cheques Exs.P2 and P3 under Mahazar Ex.P5, evidence of PWs.2 and 5 panchas to the said Mahazar;
iii) the evidence of PW-3 the Secretary of the Society whose signatures were allegedly forged;
iv) PW.6 - the Principal of the college as on the date of filing of the charge sheet;
v) PW.4 - Deputy Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad on which the cheques were drawn;
vi) PW.9 - Cashier of the Bank who passed the cheques;
vii) PW.10 - Handwriting Expert;
viii) PW.11 who registered the case and
investigated in part; and
ix) PW.8 - Investigating Officer who conducted
further investigation and filed the charge sheet.
Reg. Section 408 IPC :
15. The very language of Section 408 IPC shows that to fasten the criminal liability to the accused on the 20 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 allegation of breach of trust by clerk there should be entrustment in such capacity with property or he should have any dominion over property. PW.1 being the Principal of college was entrusted with the affairs of the institution. Nowhere in his evidence he states that there was any office order assigning the works of dealing with the cheques and cheque book of the society to the accused or the cheques were entrusted to him by an order. PW.6 the other principal of the college clearly states that there was no such order. Except the self serving testimony of PW.1 regarding such entrustment, there is no material to hold that accused No.1 was entrusted with cheque book.
16. Reading of Section 102 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Therefore, initial burden of proving the entrustment of the cheques and cheque book was on the prosecution. 21 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
17. The Investigating Officer did not collect any document to show either by written order or by practice, accused No.1 was entrusted with cheque book. Even subsequently the cheques and cheque book were produced by PW.1 himself before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly held that the entrustment itself is not proved. Consequently, charge under Section 408 IPC does not sustain. The first appellate Court without turning its attention to Section 102 of the Evidence Act and in the absence evidence in proof of entrustment held that entrustment is proved.
18. Another circumstance, which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of entrustment is the recovery of Exs.P2 and P3. If the accused presented them to the Bank and got them realized, Exs.P2 and P3 should have been recovered either from the custody of the Bank or from the custody of the accused. According 22 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 to Ex.P5 the Seizure Mahazar itself, the cheques were produced by PW.1 on 25.01.1997 between 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. in Brahmpur Police Station in the presence of PWs.2 and 5 and PW.7 seized them.
19. PW.7 in his chief-examination states that on 25.01.1997, PW.1 appeared before him with Exs.P2 and P3 and he seized them under Mahazar Ex.P5 in the presence of panchas PWs.2 and 5. PWs.2 and 5 also state the same thing. Therefore, PW.1 had to explain how he came in possession of those cheques. It appears, to overcome this, the supplementary statement of PW.1 is recorded. As per the said statement of PW.1, he collected Exs.P2 and P3 from the Bank and produced them before the police. But PW.1 in his cross- examination denied the same.
20. PW.4 - Deputy Manager of the Bank in his chief-examination states that his higher officers have given Exs.P2 and P3 to the police and he does not know 23 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 those higher officers. He also states that Exs.P2 and P3 bear the signatures of the Secretary and the Principal of the institution i.e., PW.1 and PW.3 who were authorized to sign those cheques. When this witness sates that he does not know when those higher officers gave those cheques to the police, the Investigating Officer PW.7 says that despite he issuing requisitions as per Exs.P25 to P32 to the Bank Manager to produce the cheques and other relevant documents, they did not produce them before him. Therefore, the material on record shows that Exs.P2 and P3 proceeded from the custody of PW.1 himself. This evidence has demolished the entire case of the prosecution regarding entrustment of cheques and cheque book to accused No.1.
21. In the complaint, the complainant states that accused No.1 kept the cheque book in his drawer and left on tour on 03.02.1996, then he returned only on 09.02.1996. The complaint itself states that on 24 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 05.02.1996 PW-1 used that cheque book and issued a cheque for Rs.20,000/- and on that day itself he learnt about missing of Exs.P-2 and P-3, but he does not take any action in the matter. He does not contact accused No.1 and enquire. He does not issue any instructions to bank for stopping of payment. In Ex.P-1 he says that when accused No.1 returned to the office, he enquired him and accused No.1 did not give satisfactory reply. Still PW.1 does not file the police complaint regarding missing of the cheques or issue stop payment instruction to the bank.
22. Further it is said in the complaint that on 13.02.1996, himself and accused No.1 together visited bank and enquired and came to know that Exs.P-2 and P-3 were presented for Rs.22,000/- and Rs.27,200/- and encashed. Even on learning about that, he does not file the complaint immediately but the complaint is filed only on 20.02.1996.
25 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
23. It is also material to note that PW-1 in the complaint has stated that on the same day he secured the Xerox copies of the cheques from the bank and on verification found that signatures of himself and the secretary were forged.
24. Apart from delay in filing the complaint, PW-1 is not consistent in implicating the accused. First he implicates accused No.1 stating that he suspects him. Thereafter on 30.06.1996 he has given another complaint as per Ex.P-37 to the SHO, Brahmpur police station stating that he suspects accused No.2 Shamrao Udagi and accused No.3 Chandrakant Katake. So far as Chandrakant Katake, in Ex.P-37 he says that the Bank officials identified him as the person who presented the cheques and his handwriting matched the one in the cheques Exs.P-2 and P-3, therefore, he suspects him. So far as accused No.2 Shamrao Udagi, he says that the said Udagi had got prepared duplicate key of his drawer 26 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 and he might have stolen those cheques using the duplicate keys.
25. The forging of the signatures of PWs-2 and 3 on Exs.P-2 and 3 can be accepted only on proof of the accused stealing the cheques as alleged by the prosecution. The above discussions show that the cheques were recovered from PW-1 himself. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the allegation of entrustment of cheque book and forging the signatures on them.
26. So far as the offence under Section 420 IPC, the same is attracted only if the offence constituting cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC is established . Section 415 IPC reads as follows :-
"415. Cheating.--Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person etc., and thereby causes damage or harm to that person in 27 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ''Cheat."
27. It is neither the case of PW-1 nor prosecution, that the accused any way induced PW-2 to deliver the cheques. Totally there was no basis for the charge under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused of that charge.
28. So far as the forgery, the Bank Manager PW-4 and cashier PW-9 say that they verified the signatures and found them that of PWs-1 and 3 Principal and Secretary and passed the cheques.
29. PW-3 whose signatures are allegedly forged, in his cross-examination states that police did not show him Exs.P-2 and 3 and examine him with reference to them and he is seeing them for the first time in the Court. He states in cross-examination that he did not know the numbers of stolen cheques and Principal was the custodian of the cheques. He further states that he 28 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 did not suspect anybody in the case, only the Principal (PW-1) suspected.
30. PWs-1 and 3 both admit that the cheque amount was reimbursed by PW-1. He further admits that any cheque in the bank will be passed after verification of their signatures. Therefore, there was no material in proof of the forgery. The only evidence on record was that of the hand writing expert PW-10 and his report Ex.P-22. PW-10 has not given any opinion with regard to the signatures allegedly forged on Exs.P-2 and P-3.
31. PW-7 the Investigating Officer in his evidence admits that while sending the documents for expert's opinion, he had not taken the specimen signatures of PWs-1 and 3. When even expert did not give any opinion regarding signatures on Exs.P-2 and P-3, the appellate Court states that he has given opinion about that. The opinion Ex.P-22 relates to the 29 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 endorsement and the names of the payees on the back of cheques Exs.P-2 and P-3 i.e., Vishwanath and Shrinivas and not signatures.
32. PW.10 states that sample handwriting of accused No.1 i.e. T.1 to T.80 and Z.1 and Ex.D2 and Ex.D4 i.e., purported signatures of payee Srinivasa and Vishwanath on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are that of one person (Accused No.1). Further PW.10 states that sample handwriting S.1 to S.80 and Y.1 to Y.16 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D3 i.e., the name of the payee and the amount filled up in the cheques Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 all are of one person (Accused No.2). As already pointed out, he has not given any opinion about the signatures of the drawers on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. When there is no opinion about the signatures on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, the only opinion with regard to the contents of the cheques Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 does not take the prosecution case to any logical end.
30 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
33. Further, the experts evidence is only an opinion evidence. When the other evidence is shaky experts opinion cannot be relied to convict the accused. In Murarilal's case referred to supra the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard has held as follows :-
" 11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a 31 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. The first appellate court relies upon Section 73 of the Evidence Act and says that on comparison the signatures on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 do not match with the signatures on Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7 is the cheque bearing genuine signatures of PWs.1 and 2. The said statement is without any analysis or reasonings. Further First Appellate Court does not compare signatures and writing on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 with any admitted signatures of the accused and say that they match with each other. Having said that the signatures 32 CRL.A. No.3663/2011 of accused Nos.2 and 3 do not match with Ex.P.7, the First Appellate Court jumps to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 2 have forged Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 which is incorrect.
35. Thus, the appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court and the reversal order of the trial court are erroneous. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2011 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalburgi in Crl. Appeal No.35/2008 is hereby set-aside. Appellant No.1 is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and appellant No.2 is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
33 CRL.A. No.3663/2011
36. The bail bonds of the appellants and their sureties shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, deposited, if any, by the appellants shall be refunded to them.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ/Srt/ RSP/sn