SALIG RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SALIGRAM has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Sections 409 and 466, I. P. Code and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on 31st December, 1970.

(2.) THE appellant was employed as a Postman in the Post Office, Nurpur during the months of March and April, 1967. Ram Lai (P. W.) was the Postal Clerk and Ram Parkash (P. W.) was the Postmaster of that Post Office. One money order for Rs. 40/-was booked from Subathu Post Office on 21st March, 1967 by Prem Singh Pathania (P. W.) payable to his son Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.) at Nurpur. The said money order was received in the Nurpur Post Office on 23rd March, 1967. Necessary entries in the register known as "m. O.-3" were made by Ram Parkash Clerk (P. W. ). Thereafter he gave the amount with the money order to the accused for disbursement to Rajeshwar Singh who was then a student in the Government Higher Secondary School, Nurpur, and was living in the hostel. The payee could not be found so he handed over the cash amount of Rs. 40/- along with other money orders to Ram Lai, Postal Clerk. He was again given the money by Ram Lai, Postal Clerk along with other money orders for disbursement to the various payees. The accused on his return handed over the money order paid voucher of the disputed money order to Ram Lai Postal Clerk with an endorsement made by the accused that the payment of Rs. 40/- had been made to Rajeshwar Singh. This endorsement also carried the signatures of Rajeshwar payee as also of Sawan Mai the attesting witness about the payment of the amount. Necessary entries in the register thereafter were made. Prem Singh Pathania came to know at the end of March, 1967 from his som Rajeshwar Singh that he had not received the money. Rajeshwar Singh made enquiries in the month of April from Nurpur Post Office and was advised that he should report the matter to the Post Master Subathu from where the money order in question was booked. On this Prem Singh Pathania made a complaint with the Postal Authorities and an enquiry was conducted into the mattes and it was found that the accused had not delivered the cash amount of Rs. 40/to Rajeshwar Singh and that he had forged the signatures of Rajeshwar Singh as alse of Sawan Mai on the money order paid voucher and he thus falsely showed the payment of Rs. 40/- to Rajeshwar Singh. Om the report of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dharamsala, a case was registered against the accused and after due investigation he was challaned under Sections 409 and 466, I. P. Code, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Dharamsala. The accused admitted the receipt of Rupees 258. 57 P. inclusive of the money order for Rs. 40/- payable to Rajeshwar Singh oa 25th March, 1967 for disbursement. However, his defence was that he had made the payment to the right person and the signatures were those of Rajeshwar Singh and Sawan Mai witness. The learned Sessions Judge on the testimony of Sarvshri Rajeshwar Singh, Sawan Mai and Prem Singk Pathania found that the accused had not made the payment of this amount to Raja-shwar Singh on 25th March, 1967 and that he had forged the signatures both of the payee as also of Sawan Mai the attesting witness on the money order receipt (Ex. PG) and he, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused.

(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted tha accused. The accused had. in fact, paid the amount of Rs. 40/- to Rajeshwar Singh in the presence of Sawan Mai and that it was fully proved from the evidence but th conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge was quite wrong. I do not agrea with the learned Counsel for the appellant on this point. After going through the evidence, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that it had been proved from the statements of Sarvshri Rajeshwar Singh, Prem Singh Pathania and Sawan Mai that the signatures on the money order were not those of Rajeshwar Singh and Sawan Mai. Rajeshwar Singh had denied the receipt of the money. He was a student in the Government Higher Secondary School, Nurpur, and Sawan Mai (P. W.) who is alleged to have signed the Money Order Receipt as an attesting witness in token of payment of the money was a teacher in that school. There is nothing brought on the record by the defence as to why these persons should have been interested in deposing against the accused. It is also pertinent to note that the specimen handwriting of the accused was taken in the presence of the Magistrate, who had appeared as a witness for purpose of comparison and the same was sent to the Handwriting Expeft who had not been examined as a witness although a report has been received from him. The prosecution had prayed for examination of the handwriting expert to prove the report but the learned Sessions Judge on the objection of the counsel for the accused rejected the application for examination of the handwriting expert as the name of the handwriting expert did not figure in the list of the witnesses and that the prayer was made at a very late stage and the case was pending since a very long time. In this Court the learned Counsel for the appellant has taken up this objection that in the absence of examination of the handwriting expert it could not be said whether the signatures were forged or were those of Rajeshwar Singh and Sawan Mai. That is true but this fact is quite apparent from the record that the accused stated that he did not know English. But on the endorsement he has put down his signatures in English and again when the specimen signatures which have been proved by the testimony of the Magistrate as also the Investigating Officer were written by the accused and that belies the stand of the accused that he does not know English. The learned Sessions Judge, no doubt, has wrongly rejected the prayer of the prosecution for examining the handwriting expert. But in the absence of non-examination when the necessary material is there the Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can also examine the disputed handwriting with the specimen handwriting which is taken by the Magistrate and is admitted by the accused to have been written by him. From the comparison of the same I find that the disputed signatures are also in the same hand of the same person who has written the specimen writing. The accused has furnished a very funny explanation about the specimen handwriting. According to him he does not know English and that the Investigating Officer had written down on one paper and he asked him to copy the same. He copied out the same with the specimen. It is really unbelievable that an illiterate person can copy the writing and I think the learned Sessions Judge was r right in not accepting this explanation given by him about the specimen signatures and I am of the view after comparison of the specimen handwriting with the disputed one that they are written by the same person, i. e. , the accused. Therefore, the non-examination of the Handwriting Expert is not going to make any difference.