GOVIND PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri B.D. Gupta, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jhansi, convicting Govind Prasad appellant u/S. 466 IPC and sentencing him to five years' R.I. Chaman Lal appellant was convicted u/S. 466 IPC read with S. 109 IPC & S. 474 IPC. He was sentenced to two and half years' R.I. under each of the two counts. The sentences of Chaman Lal were ordered to run concurrently. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

(2.) From the possession of Govind Prasad, Rs. 60/ - cash, a cycle token, the developed Ex. 3 and the letter Ex. 11 were discovered. From the possession of Jones, Rs. 47/ - cash, a Third Class ticket from Gwalior to Coimbatore, a reservation receipt, two photographs, a wrist watch and a mark -sheet were recovered. From the possession of Chamanlal, Rs. 40/ - in cash, a Second Class ticket from Gwalior to Jhansi, the certificate Ex. 1 and the three copies of the certificates Exts. A, B and C were recovered. The recovery memos were prepared at the spot. The three persons were then taken to Thana where a report was lodged. S.I. Chhatrapal Singh started investigation and searched the house of Govind Prasad at Jhansi from where the two forged certificates were recovered. The house of Jones was also searched but nothing was recovered from his house. The investigation was then taken up by the CID Lucknow. The CID examined a number of witnesses and took the specimen signatures of Jones, P.L. Knox and some other persons. The certificates which were recovered from the possession of Chamanlal were said to have been issued under the signatures of Jones. The letter which was recovered from the possession of Govind Prasad were said to have been written by Jones. The Document Expert reported that the letter and the envelope were in the handwriting of Jones. He also gave the opinion that the forged certificates were not in the hand -writing of Sri P.L. Knox. Before the trial started, Jones was made an approver. After trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being dissatisfied, they have filed this appeal.

(3.) The appellants denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. They stated that the papers said to have been recovered from their possession were not actually recovered from them. According to the appellants, they were falsely implicated in this case.