PADUM KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH on 14 January 2020

[2020] 1 S.C.R. 57

PADUM KUMAR

v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2020)

JANUARY 14, 2020

[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Opinion of hand writing expert –Appreciation of – Appellant-accused was working as Postman atthe relevant time – On 09.04.92, PW-3 sent registered envelope tothe Complainant-PW-1 – Envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patraof value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/- – Envelope didnot reach PW-1 who made complaint to the Department of Posts –Information was received that a person named “Mohan” receivedthe aforesaid registry – PW-1 and his son named Devesh Mohan(PW-2) went to the Post Office and saw the signature where it waswritten “D. Mohan” – PW-2 denied that the signature in questionbelongs to him – Investigation revealed that the appellant forgedthe signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 – Trial court convicted theappellant u/ss.467, 468, IPC– Appellant’s appeal and revision weredismissed – Held: Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writingexpert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidenceis corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial – In thepresent case, the report of the Government Forensic ScienceLaboratory was in favour of the appellant – But since the hand-writing expert from the said laboratory was not examined, the saidreport cannot be looked into – Further, the private hand-writingexperts (PW-5 and PW-8, son of the hand writing expert who diedby the time of the trial) opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" inEx.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures of PW-2, “S-1to S-6” – Appellant not right in contending that the courts belowbased the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writingexperts – Evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborativepiece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 – Convictionu/ss.467 & 468 IPC, confirmed – Under ss.467 & 468, the appellantwas sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four and three yearswith fine of Rs.500/-, respectively – Occurrence was of the year

57

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A1992 – Appellant has been in custody from 04.07.18 i.e. for morethan 18 months – In the facts and circumstances of the case, thesentence of imprisonment imposed is reduced to the period alreadyundergone – Appellant be released forthwith unless required in anyother case – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467, 468.

BPartly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1 In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2stated that the registry is said to have been received at his houseon 13.04.1992 and on the said date, he was not present at homeas he had gone for coaching at 10:00 am and had come back toCthe house at about 04:00 pm. On being shown the delivery slip-Ex.-P4, PW-2 clearly denied that it does not bear his signature.The evidence of PW-2 denying his signature in Ex.-P4-deliveryslip is a valuable piece of evidence supporting the case of theprosecution. The courts below rightly recorded the concurrentfindings that by the evidence of PW-2, the prosecution has clearlyDestablished that PW-2 had not put the signature in Ex.-P4-deliveryslip. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writingexperts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. The report ofthe Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is in favour of theappellant. But as rightly pointed out by the courts below thatEsince the hand-writing expert from the Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, the said reportcannot be looked into. The appellant-accused had also notsummoned the hand-writing expert from the GovernmentForensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate hisdefence. [Paras 12, 13] [63-H; 64-A-E]F

1.2 Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writingexpert, prudence requires that the court must see that suchevidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct orcircumstantial evidence. [Para 17] [66-D]

GS. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 :[1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439 – referred to.

Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210: [1977] 2 SCR 1007 ; Murari Lal v. State of MadhyaPradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704 : [1980] 2 SCR 249 – relied on.

H

1.3 The hand-writing experts - PW-5 and ‘SRG’ opined thatthe disputed signature-”Q-1" in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 doesnot match with the specimen signatures-”S-1 to S-6". Hand-writing experts also opined that the one who wrote the specimensignatures had not written the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4. As pointed out by the courts below, the evidence of hand-writing expert is the evidence relied upon by the prosecution tocorroborate the evidence of PW-2 who denied his signature inEx.-P4. The counsel for the appellant is not right in contendingthat the courts below have based the conviction solely upon theopinion of the hand-writing experts. The evidence of hand-writingexperts is only a corroborative piece of evidence to corroboratethe evidence of PW-2. In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3and other evidence, the High Court rightly found that the appellantwho delivered the registered envelope at the place of thecomplainant-PW-1 is bound to explain as to who made the allegedsignature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. In the absence of anyexplanation by the appellant-accused, as held by the High Court,a presumption is to be raised against the appellant who deliveredthe envelope as he is the only person having knowledge of thesame. From the evidence of PW-3, the prosecution has provedthat the envelope contained valuable security-four Indira VikasPatra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-. Uponappreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the courtsbelow rightly recorded the concurrent findings that the appellanthas forged the signature of PW-2 and the conviction of theappellant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is based upon theevidence and the conviction does not suffer from any infirmitywarranting interference. For the conviction under Section 467IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment forfour years and for the conviction under Section 468 IPC, for threeyears along with fine of Rs.500/-. The occurrence was of the year1992. As seen from the custody certificate, the appellant has beenin custody from 04.07.2018 i.e. for a period of more than eighteenmonths. Considering that the occurrence was of the year 1992and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ofimprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to theperiod already undergone. The impugned judgment is accordinglymodified. [Paras 18-21] [67-F-H; 68-A-G]

AB

CDE

FG

H

ACase Law Reference

BCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 87 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal RevisionNo. 511 of 2006.

C

Saurabh Mishra, Rishad Murtaza and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Advs. for the Appellant.

Adarsh Upadhyay, Aviral Saxena and Garvesh Kabra, Advs. forthe Respondent.

DThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the impugnedjudgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High CourtEdismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant confirming hisconviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the sentence ofimprisonment imposed upon him.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:-

FThe appellant-Padum Kumar was then working as Postman inIndira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow. On 09.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L.Varshney, Professor, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent aregistered envelope No.0095 to the Complainant-Dr. K.B. Varshney(PW-1) from the Sub-Post Office of the said Institute. The said envelopecontained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totallingGRs.20,000/-. The envelope did not reach PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney;therefore, on 27.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L. Varshney made a complaintbefore the Post Master, Post Office, Agriculture Institute, Naini,Allahabad. PW-1-Complainant-Dr. K.B. Varshney also enquired fromIndira Nagar Post Office. On 29.04.1992, PW-1 had also filed a complaint H

to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts that the envelopeRegistry No.0095 has not been received. On 14.05.1992, informationwas received from Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknowthat a person named “Mohan” has received the aforesaid registry on13.04.1992. Then, PW-1 and his son Devesh Mohan-PW-2 went toIndira Nagar Post Office and saw the signature where it has been writtenas “D. Mohan”. Complainant’s son is also named Devesh Mohan (PW-2). On being shown the signature, PW-2 denied that the signature inquestion belongs to him. A case was registered in Crime No.394/1992under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC at P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow. Thecase was investigated. Later on, the investigation of the case wasentrusted to C.B. C.I.D.

4. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of variouswitnesses. The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed signaturealong with the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan to theForensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. As per the report given by theForensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, the person who has madespecimen signatures has also made the disputed signature in the deliveryslip-Ex.-P4. The disputed signature “Q-1” along with the specimensignatures of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6” were sent to private hand-writing expertM.Y. Khan-PW-5. In his evidence, PW-5 has stated that on comparisonof the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip with the specimensignatures of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6”, he came to the conclusion that thedisputed signature is different from the specimen signatures and PW-5had issued his report-Ex.-P9. Yet another hand-writing expert Siya RamGupta had also examined the disputed signature with reference to thespecimen signatures. Siya Ram Gupta had opined that the disputedsignature in the delivery slip has not been made by PW-2-Devesh Mohan.By the time of trial, hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta passed awayand his son Ranjeet Kumar has been examined as PW-8. As PW-8-Ranjeet Kumar was acquainted with the hand-writing of his father-SiyaRam Gupta, the report of hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta has beenmarked through his son-PW-8. The investigation revealed that theappellant had forged the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. Oncompletion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against theappellant-accused under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.

5. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution hasexamined PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, PW-2-Devesh Mohan, PW-3- Dr.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AM.L. Varshney, hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khan, PW-8-RanjeetKumar, son of another hand-writing expert-Siya Ram Gupta and otherwitnesses. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,the trial court noted that three hand-writing experts are on record.According to one expert, the disputed signature has been made by DeveshMohan-PW-2. The trial court also noted that the other two expertsBhave mentioned in their reports that the disputed signature “Q-1” indelivery slip do not match with the specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6”.The trial court held that the appellant being the Postman did the work ofdelivery of registry and the delivery slip was kept with him therefore, theconclusion is that the appellant made the signature of “D. Mohan” in theCdelivery slip. The trial court held that the appellant frequently used tovisit the house of the complainant-PW-1 by taking registries and lettersand thus, he was well-acquainted with the signature of PW-2-DeveshMohan. Based upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the reports ofhand-writing experts, the trial court held that the appellant had committed the offence of forgery and convicted him under Sections 467 and 468DIPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four yearsand three years respectively. Both the sentences were directed to runconcurrently.6. Challenging the conviction, the appellant has filed an appealbefore the appellate court – Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,ELucknow. The appellate court dismissed the appeal by holding that uponproper analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial courthas rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.511of 2006 before the High Court of Allahabad which came to be dismissedFby the impugned judgment. The High Court held that the prosecutionhas adduced evidence proving that the signature of “D. Mohan” in thedelivery slip and the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan differs.The High Court further held that the appellant was the person whodelivered the envelope and in such circumstances, it is for the appellantGto explain as to who signed the disputed signature and in the absence ofany such explanation from the appellant, the presumption is to be raisedagainst the appellant that he is the only person having knowledge of thesame. The revision was accordingly dismissed and the conviction of theappellant was affirmed.

8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learnedcounsel for the appellant has contended that without proving that theappellant has forged the signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip, the convictionof the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC cannot be sustained.Learned counsel further submitted that the courts below erred in notconsidering that the Government hand-writing expert’s report was infavour of the appellant. It was submitted that in the absence ofexamination of hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta who gave the opinion,the report of Siya Ram Gupta cannot be proved by examining his son-Ranjeet Kumar-PW-8 and the courts below ought not to have placedreliance upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khanand another hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta. It was contended thatthe High Court erred in holding that it is for the appellant to prove as towho signed in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and the High Court erred in raisingthe presumption against the appellant and the conviction of the appellantis not sustainable.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel forthe respondent-State has submitted that upon proper appreciation ofevidence adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly convictedthe appellant. It was submitted that the prosecution relies upon not merelyon the opinion of the hand-writing experts, but the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan, son of complainant-Dr. K.B. Varshney (PW-1) whohas denied having put his signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and theprosecution has well established the guilt of the appellant.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perusedthe impugned judgment and other materials on record.

11. By adducing the evidence of Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3), theprosecution has proved that on 09.04.1992, PW-3 had sent a registeredenvelope No.0095 to PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.When PW-1 did not receive the said envelope, on 27.04.1992, PW-3complained the same to the concerned Sub-Post Office, Naini, Allahabad.PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney also filed a complaint on 29.04.1992 to theSenior Superintendent, Department of Posts, Lucknow. Afterinvestigation, it was learnt that on 14.05.1992, a person named Mohanhas received the aforesaid registry on 13.04.1992.

12. In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2-Devesh Kumarhas stated that the registry is said to have been received at his house on AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13.04.1992 and on the said date, he was not present at home as he hadgone for coaching at 10:00 am and had come back to the house at about04:00 pm. On being shown the delivery slip- Ex.-P4, PW-2 clearly deniedthat it does not bear his signature. PW-2 further stated that the appellanthad brought the registry and his mother had received them. It is to bepointed out that neither the name of “Devesh Mohan” nor the name ofB“mother of PW-2” was written on the distribution slip; but some otherthing had been written. The evidence of PW-2 denying his signature inEx.-P4-delivery slip is a valuable piece of evidence supporting the caseof the prosecution. The courts below rightly recorded the concurrentfindings that by the evidence of PW-2, the prosecution has clearlyCestablished that PW-2-Devesh Mohan had not put the signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip.

13. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writingexperts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Ofcourse, hand-writing expert’s report by the Government Forensic ScienceDLaboratory, Lucknow has stated that the person who has written thespecimen signatures “S-1 to S-6” had written the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory,Lucknow is in favour of the appellant. But as rightly pointed out by thecourts below that since the hand-writing expert from the Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, the said report cannot beElooked into. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-accused had also notsummoned the hand-writing expert from the Government ForensicScience Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence.

14. Be that as it may, the hand-writing expert-M.Y. Khan (PW-5)in his report-Ex.-P9 has stated that the person who had written theFspecimen signatures “S-1 to S-6” had not written the disputed signature“Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and that the same is different from thesignature of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. In his report, PW-5 had also explainedas to how the disputed signature does not match with the specimensignatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Likewise, in his report, hand-writingGexpert Siya Ram Gupta had also opined that the disputed signature inEx.-P4-delivery slip has not been written by PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Bythe time when the trial was taken up, hand-writing expert Siya RamGupta passed away and his son-Ranjeet Kumar (PW-8) who wasacquainted with the hand-writing of Siya Ram Gupta was examined tomark the report.H

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that withoutindependent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the hand-writingexperts cannot be relied upon to base the conviction. In support of hiscontention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon S.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596, wherein the SupremeCourt held as under:- “28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot besaid to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with thedisputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak typeof evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering‘conclusive’ proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same withoutseeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan BihariLal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with theevidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:

“… We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn theappellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of ahandwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinionmust always be received with great caution and perhaps noneso with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds thatit is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion withoutsubstantial corroboration. This rule has been universally actedupon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held bythis Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficientbasis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supportedby other items of internal and external evidence. This Courtagain pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can neverbe conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and thisview was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. SubodhKumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed outby this Court that expert’s evidence as to handwriting beingopinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place ofsubstantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, itwould be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated eitherby clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. ThisCourt had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. Stateof M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of cautionpointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solelyon the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting uponsuch evidence, the court must always try to see whether it iscorroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.”

B

16. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on theevidence of the hand-writing expert. As held by the Supreme Court inMagan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 that “expertopinion must always be received with great caution……..it is unsafeto base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantialCcorroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and ithas almost become a rule of law.”

17. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion ofthe hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see thatsuch evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct orDcircumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh(1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. …….True, it has occasionally been said on very high authoritythat it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinionof a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinionof any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, isnot because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses — thequality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expertshares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgmentis fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect ofobservation, some error of premises or honest mistake ofconclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science,the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if thescience is less developed and imperfect. The science ofidentification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and therisk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the otherhand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly soperfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry fromdoubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable ruleand insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case,howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons.It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial E

F

G

H

suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinionhas to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him.An expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish theJudge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracyof his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his ownindependent judgment by the application of these criteria to thefacts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v.Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross inhis evidence).”

5. …….

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the EvidenceAct and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as toidentity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled”“in questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made arelevant fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably beinsisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expertand there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of aparticular case, a court may require corroboration of a varyingdegree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justifythe rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallengedreasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approachof a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expertshould be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion,consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to acceptor reject it.”

18. As pointed out earlier, the hand-writing experts - M.Y. Khan(PW-5) and Siya Ram Gupta have opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimensignatures-”S-1 to S-6". Hand-writing experts have also opined that theone who wrote the specimen signatures had not written the disputedsignature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4. As pointed out by the courts below, theevidence of hand-writing expert is the evidence relied upon by theprosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan whohas denied his signature in Ex.-P4. Learned counsel for the appellant isnot right in contending that the courts below have based the convictionsolely upon the opinion of the hand-writing experts. The evidence ofhand-writing experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence tocorroborate the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A19. In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and other evidence,the High Court rightly found that the appellant who delivered the registeredenvelope at the place of the complainant-PW-1 is bound to explain as towho made the alleged signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. In the absenceof any explanation by the appellant-accused, as held by the High Court,a presumption is to be raised against the appellant who delivered theBenvelope as he is the only person having knowledge of the same. Fromthe evidence of PW-3-Dr. M.L. Varshney, the prosecution has provedthat the envelope contained valuable security-four Indira Vikas Patra ofvalue of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-. Upon appreciation ofevidence adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly recordedCthe concurrent findings that the appellant has forged the signature ofPW-2-Devesh Mohan and the conviction of the appellant under Sections467 and 468 IPC is based upon the evidence and the conviction does notsuffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

20. For the conviction under Section 467 IPC, the appellant hasDbeen sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and for theconviction under Section 468 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced toundergo imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.500/-. Theoccurrence was of the year 1992. As seen from the custody certificate,the appellant has been in custody from 04.07.2018 i.e. for a period ofmore than eighteen months. Considering that the occurrence was of theEyear 1992 and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ofimprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period alreadyundergone.

21. In the result, the conviction of the appellant-accused underSections 467 and 468 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonmentFimposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. Theimpugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 is accordinglymodified and the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant-accused isordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in anyGother case.

Divya Pandey

Appeal partly allowed.

H