pu 10/a which was a forged document.
during the companyrse of investigation the police entertained suspicion against the appellant and they obtained from the appellant specimen handwritings pw 27/37 to pw 27/57 for the purpose of companyparing them with the handwriting on the rail way receipt ex.
hence the present appeal by special leave 1009 the facts giving rise to the prosecution are set out in great detail in the judgment of the high companyrt and hence it is number necessary to reiterate them.
it appears that since m s shiv rattan mohatta did number re ceive delivery of the iron sheets companysigned to them in wagon number sekc 40765 they lodged a claim with the railway admin istration and this led to enquiries being made by the rail way administration.
when this talk took place between joginder lal and ram nath on the one hand and umedi lal on the other umedi lal was according to the prosecu tion accompanied by the appellant who was at the material time employed as a guard in the numberthern railway.
joginder lal and ram nath according asked umedi lal to produce 1010 the bill in companynection with the purchase of these iron sheets but umedi lal pleaded his inability to do so on the ground that these iron sheets represented surplus goods remaining after execution of a works companytract by his firm of m s bansidhar sons of lalitpur.
since joginder lal and ram nath refused to purchase the iron sheets umedi lal removed the same in three carts and passed a receipt in respect of the same in favour of m s jindal khemka company the prosecution case was that at this time also umedi lal was accompanied by three or four persons who included the appellant.
a further revision application followed but that too was rejected by the high companyrt.
the specimen handwritings of the appellant exs.
the appellant was on the basis of this material put up for trial before the judicial magistrate 1st class ludhiana.
pw 10a to b. lal government examiner of questioned docu ments and b. lal gave his opinion that the writing marked at a1 on the railway receipt ex.
ultimately the railway administration filed a first information report with the special police establishment ambala branch and following upon the first information report the police started investigation.
pw 27/ 37 to pw 27/57 were sent along with the railway receipt ex.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th september 1975 of the punjab and haryana high court in criminal revision number 314 of 1973 .
the appellant and ameeruddin accord ingly went to patiala and they were taken to the central jail and there a test identification parade was held at which joginder lal failed to identify the appellant but ram nath after some hesitation managed to identify him.
the police also requested the railway authorities to direct the appellant and one ameeruddin who was also an employee of the railway administration to subject themselves to test identification parade at the hands of the special railway magistrate patiala.
p. sharma for respondent.
criminal appellate jurisdiction crimitial appeal number 22 of 1976.
he carried an appeal to the sessions companyrt but the appeal was unsuccessful.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. we made an order on 28th january 1977 immediately after the companyclusion of the hearing of the appeal and by that order we allowed the appeal and set aside the order of companyviction and sentence recorded against the appellant.
of the railway receipt his doubts suddenly seemed to have vanished and he delivered the companysignment of 354 black iron sheets which had companye in wagon number sekg 40765 to umedi lal.
the appellant was tried and companyvicted by the judicial magistrate 1st class ludhiana for offences under sections 468 411 and 420 read with section 109 of the indian penal code.
pw 10/a and the specimen handwritings pw 27/37 to 27/57 were all by one and the same person.
it does number appear from the record us to where this companysignment of 354 black iron sheets was kept by umedi lal but out of it 200/250 iron sheets were taken to the premises of m s jindal khemka company for sale on companymis sion basis.
joginder lal and ram nath were however ac cording to the prosecution advised by some broker that since iron sheets were companytrolled items they should insist on production of a bill showing purchase of these iron sheets by umedi lai.
l. kohli for the appellant.
