SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has concurrently beed convicted under section 465 of the Indian Penal Code by the two Courts below impugns his conviction on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the forged document Exhibit P. I was either prepared by him or was in his handwriting. The facts which furnish the necessary background of this case are as follows :-

(2.) NO doubt it has been stated by Ram Murti, PW 7, Checking Inspector that the document Exhibit P. I is not the document which was produced before him by the petitioner at the time of checking as it did rot bear the endorsement made by him yet that by itself does not prove that the document Exhibit P. I was either prepared or forged by the petitioner. On the contrary, this witness has stated in no uncertain terms that he could not identify as to whether the document Exhibit P. I was in the handwriting of the petitioner at all. To establish the charge against the petitioner the prosecution has further depended on the statement of PW 2 Gurdip Singh. Valuation Clerk and PW 5 Tarlok Singh Booking Clerk, who have stated that they were conversant with the hand-writing of the petitioner as they had been seeing him writing and the document Exhibit P. I was in his handwriting. According to them, the same is also signed by him. PW 2 Gurdip Singh however, admitted during cross examination that the way-bill Exhibit P. I was never presented to him and was rather presented before Jasbir Singh Clerk. He further stated that generally a Valuation Clerk deals with 45 conductors and he could identify the signatures and the waybills prepared by all the 45 conductors, yet when he was confronted with way-bill Exhibit P. I he had to frankly admit that he did not know in whose hand that way-bill was. Similarly, PW-5 Tarlok Singh has stated that he could identify the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner on the way-bill Exhibit P.1 yet had to admit during cross-examination that I cannot tell or identify the handwriting of a particular conductor on a particular way-bill without reading the name of the Conductor". So it is manifest that his impression that the incriminating way-bill Exhibit P. I is in the handwriting of the petitioner and bears his signatures is just on account of the fact that it purports to have men signed as Sadhu Singh, In other words, since this way-bill bore the name of Sidhu Singh, the witness appears to have formed the opinion that it WAS prepared and signed by Sadhu Singh petitioner. The evidence of the two P.Ws. Nos. 2 and 5, to my mind, is wholly insufficient and unsatisfactory to hold conclusively that the way-bill Exhibit P. 1 was either prepared or signed by the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner has produced hand-writing expert, Mr. P.S. Ahuja, as DW. I who, after an examination of the document Exhibit P. I categorically stated, that the same was not in the handwriting of the petitioner nor did it bear his signatures. There is nothing to disbelieve this witness. In the light of this, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. I, therefore, allow this revision and while setting aside the judgment in question acquit him. The bail bond is discharged and the fine, if already deposited, be refunded to him.