This explanation however did number go so far as to establish that B. M. 28 in companynection with the bill in question was number returned by the Treasury to the Appellant at the end of February 1950.
The prosecution established the first point, viz.,
These signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh were alleged to be forged and the Appellant was charged that he on or about 7 2 1950 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine a forged document, viz.,
The only explanation which he vouchsafed in answer to the questions which were put to him by the learned Judge in his further examination was that, he did number include this sum of Rupees 11,579 8 0 in the expenditure return because he did number get B. M. 28 by that time.
An appeal was filed by the Appellant to the Punjab High Court against his companyviction and sentence.
It was apparent on the record that the appellant withdrew Rs.
subsistence allowance bill for the month of February, 1950 which he knew or had reasons to believe at the time he used it to be a forged document and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 467 read with 471, Penal Code.
The only other companytention which the learned companynsel for the Appellant urged before us was that there was numberfraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of the Appellant in using this forged bill as genuine.
This was numberdoubt companyfirmed by the High Court.
The Appellant did number elicit this fact at all and on the record as it stands we are unable to find any explanation rendered by the Appellant in regard to the circumstance of his number having included Rs.
The Magistrate found on the evidence that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh appearing on the bill were forged and that the Appellant was guilty of the offence with which he was charged, He therefore companyvicted the appellant of the offence and sentenced him to 41/2 years rigorous imprisonment.
We are of the opinion that the finding in that behalf arrived at by the learned Additional District Magistrate who tried the case was companyrect and the Appellant was lawfully prosecuted for the offence with which he had been charged.
He also examined Mr. Charles E. Hardless, a handwriting expert who deposed that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh appearing on the bill had been retouched.
11,579 8 0 in the expenditure return was number dishonest.
That by itself was enough to show without anything more that the appellant was actuated by a fraudulent and dishonest motive in withdrawing this sum on the forged signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on that bill.
On these circumstances being proved against the appellant it was the duty of the appellant to establish that the number inclusion of the sum of Rs.
On 7 2 1950 he withdrew from the Treasury a sum of Rs.
When the Appellant however came to make his expenditure return for the month of February 1950 on or about 3 3 1950 he included therein only the last two sums aggregating to Rupees 19,578 14 0 but number the first sum of Rupees 11,579 8 0 which he had withdrawn from the Treasury on 7 2 1950.
He urged that numberquestions were put to the appellant by the learned Judge when he examined him further in the High Court which gave him an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which were sought to be used against him.
11,579 8 0 on the strength of a companytingent voucher being a subsistence allowance bill for the month of February, 1950, purporting to be signed by Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore.
The Additional District Magistrate, Ferozepore, who tried the case negatived the companytention of the Appellant that sanction of the State Government was necessary for his prosecution under Section 5 2 , East Punjab National Volunteer Corps Act, 1947.
Under the above circumstances the fraudulent and dishonest motive which actuated the appellant in using the forged bill dated 7 2 1950 as genuine when he withdrew Rupees 11,579 8 0 on 7 2 1950 on the strength thereof was established and the offence with which the appellant had been charged was satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.
The expenditure return was made by the 3rd of the following month and the Appellant stated that any omission therefrom would be entered in the next months expenditure return.
11,579 8 0 on 7 2 1950, Rs.
11,579 8 0.
This appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment and order of the Punjab High Court.
The charge against the Appellant involved the proof by the prosecution that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on the bill dated 7 2 1950 were forged and that the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the bill bearing these forged signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh for obtaining from the Treasury the sum of Rs.
1,689 2 0 on 8 2 1950 and Rs.
B. M. 28 was an extract of the bill which he sent along with the bill.
Mr. Justice Soni who heard the appeal also negatived the companytention in regard to the sanction and companyfirmed this companyviction.
Considerable evidence was led by the prosecution including that of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh himself to show that the signatures appearing on the bill dated 7 2 1950 were forged.
The companytention in regard to the sanction of the State Government under Section 5 2 , East Punjab National Volunteer Corps Act, 1947 was again raised before us by the learned companynsel for the Appellant.
He however opined that the retouching was made number with a view to improve the signatures but with a view to subsequently distort the same so as to make them differ in appearance from the signatures usually written by Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh.
that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on the bill were forged.
D. W. 4, S. Harbans Singh was the clerk of the Treasury Office, Ferozepore who deposed to the receipt of the bill dated 7 2 1950.
31,158 6 0 withdrawn by him as subsistence allowance for the month of February 1950.
On a perusal of the rules framed by the State Government under Section 8 of the Act however the learned companynsel did number press this companytention and numberhing more need be said in regard to the same.
11,579 8 0 in the expenditure return which he submitted on or about 3 3 1950.
The Appellant in his defence examined several witnesses companynected with the Imperial Bank of India, Ferozepore where the payment had been made to him on the strength of the said bill.
17,889 12 0 on 18 2 1950, thus making up an aggregate sum of Rs.
Both the Courts below negatived the defence version and came to the companyclusion that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on the bill dated 7 2 1950 were forged.
It was to have companye back to him from the Treasury and would be ordinarily returned at the end of the month.
He was therefore rightly companyvicted by both the Courts below of the offence with which he had been charged.
It can therefore be taken as satisfactorily proved that the signatures of Rao Sahib Chowdhury Bhim Singh on the bill were forged.
In regard to the sentence however the learned Judge companysidered the sentence of 41/2 years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the appellant as inadequate and thought that a sentence of fine should also have been imposed upon the Appellant.
Bhagwati, J. The Appellant in this appeal by special leave was a Head Constable of Police who was posted as an accountant in the National Volunteer Corps office in Ferozpore District.
The sentence of 41/2 years rigorous imprisonment which was imposed upon the appellant was a deterrent sentence deliberately so imposed upon him by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Ferozepore.
He also was number asked anything about B. M. 28 in companynection with that bill.
In our opinion the calling of D. W. 4 as his witness afforded the appellant an opportunity of eliciting from him the fact if any, that B. M. 28 in companynection with this bill dated 7 2 1950 was number returned by the Treasury to the appellant till after he had filed the expenditure return for February 1950.
P.W. 2, a clerk in the Accountant Generals Office, Simla produced the bills but he was number asked anything about B. M. 28 in regard to the bill which was sent on 7 2 1950 and which was supposed to have companye back to the appellant from the Treasury after the bill was paid.
