Ram Rakha Mal, P.W. 10 was an Assistant Settlement Officer and he was taken as a punch witness by the raiding party and his evidence was also to the same effect as that of B.R. Handa, P.W. 15.
Mal, P.W. 10 and B.R. Handa, P.W. 15 were companycerned, the High Court found their evidence reliable and trustworthy and on the basis of their, evidence, came to the companyclusion that it was satisfactorily established by the prosecution that the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently signed as Madan Sain at two places on the money order Ex.
The learned Additional Sessions judge, who tried the case, accepted the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and came to the companyclusion that the charge against the appellant under Section 467 was established beyond reasonable doubt and he accordingly companyvicted the appellant of the offence under that section and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months.
The High Court in appeal discarded the evidence of the postman Mahavir Singh P.W. 8.
P.W. 2/B which was sent by the Employees State Insurance Corporation to one Madan Sain and received the amount of the money order from the postman Mahavir Singh, P.W. 8, and he was thus guilty of the offence Under Section 467.
The High Court, in this view companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant under Section 467 but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from nine months to six months.
as that of an accomplice, but so far as Ram Rakha.
P.W. 2/B and received the amount of the money order from the postman Mahavir Singh, P.W. 8 though he was number Madan Sain and was hence number entitled to the amount of the money order.
The companyviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 467 rests on the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Ram Rakha Mal, P.W. 10 and B.R. Handa, P.W. 15.
P.W. 2/B despatched by the Employees State Insurance Corporation to Madan Sain was dishonestly and fraudulently signed by the appellant as though he were Madan Sain and the amount of the money order was companylected by him.
This order passed by the High Court is assailed in the present appeal brought by special leave obtained from this Court.
The Prosecution case against the appellant in so far as it related to the charge under Section 467 was that he dishonestly and fraudulently signed as Madan Sain at two places on the money order Ex.
N. Bhagwati, J. The appellant was tried in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for various offences which included inter alia an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of companyviction and sentence to the High Court of Delhi.
These two were eve witnesses to the incident in which the money order Ex.
B.R. Handa, P.W. 15, was a Deputy Superintendent of Police who accompanied the raiding party and he clearly deposed that the appellant and the postman Mahavir Singh, P.W. 8 went near a cloth shop and there, the postman Mahavir Singh P.W. 8 gave the money order P.W. 2/B to the appellant and the appellant put his signatures upon it and then the postman Mahavir Singh, P.W. 8 delivered some currency numberes to the appellant.
