1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 909-910 OF 2003
RAVICHANDRAN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS ...RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 805-806 OF 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 807-808 OF 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 911-912 OF 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1515-1516 OF 2003
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1527-1528 OF 2003
ORDER
1. All these appeals involve similar and connected facts. Since, the
legal issues that arise for our consideration are also similar, we
proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment
and order.
2
2. Before we delve into the facts of the case, it would be appropriate for
us to deal with the miscellaneous applications that have been filed in
this Court and also the statement of the learned counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003.
3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6391 to 6394 of 2010 in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2003 and Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6396-6399 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1527-1528 of 2003 are applications filed by the legal
representatives of the accused No. 1 namely, Kumaraguru seeking
for substitution of their names in place of the deceased appellant-
accused No. 1. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court,
appellant-accused No. 1 died on 9th April, 2007. The present
applications have therefore been filed by his legal representatives
seeking for substitution of their names in place of the deceased
appellant accused No. 1. In support of the aforesaid prayer, the
legal representatives of the deceased appellant-accused No. 1 have
relied upon the provisions of Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. For the reasons stated in the said applications, the
applications are allowed. The names of the applicants who are the
legal representatives of the deceased-appellant accused No. 1 are,
3
thus, allowed to be brought on record. The said applications stand
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
4. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeals in this
Court, accused No. 3 namely, Tamizhselvan who was the owner of
shop No. 18 had died. In that view of the matter, so far as the
appeals against accused No. 3 are concerned, i.e. Criminal Appeal
Nos. 805-806 of 2003, they stand abated. The same are dismissed,
accordingly. The owner of shop No. 30, Kandasamy, accused No. 3
in the first appeal has not filed any appeal in this Court against the
order of conviction and sentence passed against him. It has been
stated that he has served out the sentence awarded to him.
5. Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present appeals,
are that the appellants herein were charged under the provisions of
Section 120-B, Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 477A
read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in SLP. C.C. No. 1 of 1985. In
C.C. No. 3 of 1985, charges were framed against the appellants
herein under clause 4(a) of the Pondicherry Essential Commodities
(Display of Stocks, Price and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1975
read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
4
The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein, i.e.,
accused Nos. 1 and 2 prepared the permit for issuance of palmolein
oil and the counter foil thereof was retained in the office. Both the
aforesaid permits and the counter foil were in the handwriting of
accused No. 2 which are also initialed and signed by A1 and A2.
Subsequently, however, in the permit it was detected that there was
interpolation and forgery in respect of shop No. 30. One of such
permits indicates that the palmolein oil was meant to be issued in
favour of Shop No. 38. The counter foil retained in the office
indicates that it was meant to be issued and was in fact issued in
favour of shop No. 38 but in the permit, it was detected later on that
the same was converted and interpolated as shop No. 30. Delivery
of the palmolein oil was also taken on behalf of shop No. 30.
6. In view of the aforesaid interpolation and forgery in the said
documents, two separate cases were registered under the aforesaid
provisions. After submission of the charge-sheet, trial was conducted
and a number of witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 19 were examined and
several documents were also placed on record which were marked as
Exhibits P1 to P57.
5
7. All the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and on conclusion of the trial, the trial
Court, in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 1985, convicted all the accused
persons namely A1-A3 for an offence under Section 120B IPC
and sentenced each to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and also convicted them under Section 420 read
with Section 120B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.
500/- each, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment. The accused persons were further also
convicted under Section 477A read with Section 120B IPC and
sentenced each to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
Ravichandran, A2 and A1 were also convicted under Section
5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced each to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. Kandasamy A3 was convicted
under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced
to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
6
of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
8. With respect to Spl. C.C. No. 3 of 1985, accused Nos. 1 and 2
were convicted under clause 4(a) of the Pondicherry Essential
Commodities (Display of Stock, Prices and Maintenance of
Accounts) Order 1975 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 109 of
I.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
Accused No. 3 was convicted under clause 4(a) of the
Pondicherry Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks, Prices
and Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1975 read with Section
7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and he was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the
trial Court, the appellants preferred four separate appeals. Two
appeals being C.A. Nos. 181 and 184 of 1994 were filed by
accused No. 1. The other two appeals being C.A. Nos. 220 and
222 of 1994 were filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 jointly. The
7
High Court by its judgment and order dated 31.12.2003
dismissed all the appeals.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction
and sentences, the appellants before us filed the appeals which
were entertained. All the appeals have been listed for hearing
and we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
11. Counsel for the appellants have submitted before us that the
judgments are required to be set aside as none of the accused
persons could be said to be guilty of the offences alleged
against them. It is pointed out that although the aforesaid
permit as also the counter foil were prepared by accused No. 2
and were signed by both the accused no. 2 and accused No. 1,
yet there is no conclusive proof that the interpolation and
forgery was done by both the accused persons. It was also
pointed out during the course of arguments by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants that so far as accused No.
3 is concerned, he died during the pendency of the present
appeals and he did not file any appeal himself before the Court.
So far as accused No. 4 is concerned, counsel appearing on his
8
behalf has drawn our attention to the fact that although he is
the brother of A3 there is no evidence to show that he in fact
knew that the aforesaid permit which was delivered by him in
the office of the Federation was in any manner interpolated or
forged.
12. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, the Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing for the respondent-CBI tried to contend that it is the
concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts below and
therefore, the findings should not and cannot be interfered
with by this Court. He also submitted that the findings on
record fully prove and establish the guilt of the two accused
persons and that there is enough material on record to show
that the documents in question were forged at least with the
knowledge and consent of the accused persons and therefore,
the conviction and sentences passed against them are legal
and valid.
13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, we have considered
the entire record of the case. We have carefully scrutinised the
evidence adduced in the present cases. After going through the
same, we are of the considered opinion that there is no
9
evidence on record to indicate any link to prove and establish
that the interpolation and forgery was done by any of the
accused persons namely, A1, A2 or A4. Only because A4 is
the brother of A3 does not in any manner prove and establish
that he had knowledge that the permit was interpolated when
he had presented it before the office of the Federation.
14. In order to prove that the interpolation and the forgery was
done by A1 and A2, the prosecution has led evidence of P.W. 3
and P.W. 6 who have stated that they knew the handwriting,
signatures, initials and mode of writing the figures of A1 and
A2. Before we deal with the testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 on
the point of handwriting, signatures, initials of the accused
persons, we wish to refer to two judgments of this Court. In
Rahim Khan Vs. Khurshid Ahmed and Others [(1974) 2 SCC
660], this Court held as follows:
“39. There is also oral evidence identifying the
signature of the returned candidate on Exhibits P3
and PW 11/1, particularly in the deposition of Habib,
PW 23. He has not spoken to his familiarity with the
handwriting of the appellant. Opinion evidence is
hearsay and becomes relevant only if the condition
laid down in Section 47 of the Evidence Act is first
proved. There is some conflict of judicial opinion on
this matter, but we need not resolve it here, because,
although there is close resemblance between the
signature of Rahim Khan on admitted documents and
10
that in Exhibits P3 and PW 11/1, we do not wish to
hazard a conclusion based on dubious evidence or lay
comparison of signatures by Courts. In these
circumstances, we have to search for other evidence, if
any, in proof of circulation of the printed handbills by
the returned candidate, or with his consent.”
In Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1980 SC 531], this
Court held as under:-
“11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule
of law, nor any rule of prudence which has
crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of
a handwriting expert must never be acted upon,
unless substantially corroborated. But, having due
regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
identification of handwriting, the approach, as we
indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons
for the opinion must be carefully probed and
examined. All other relevant evidence must be
considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may
be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion
are convincing and there is no reliable evidence
throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an
handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be
any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate
analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial
weight. We have said so much because this is an
argument frequently met with in subordinate courts
and sentences torn out of context from the judgments
of this Court are often flaunted.”
15. P.W. 6 stated in his examination-in-chief that he knew the
accused persons, viz., A1 to A3 and that A2 was working in
Civil Supplies Inspector’s Office in the rank of UDC and that he
had earlier worked with him in the Finance Department. P.W.
11
6 has however, nowhere stated in the examination-in-chief that
the present instance of interpolation or forgery was in the hand
of A2. In the cross-examination, P.W. 6 stated that although
he had worked along with A2 in the Finance Department, but
he was working in a different Section of the Department. He
has clearly stated that he was working in the Budget Section
called F1 whereas A2 was working in the Motor Conveyance
Section called F2 Section. It has also been brought to our
notice that in the cross-examination, it was said that the files
dealt by A2 and F2 Section in the Finance Department never
came to the F1 Section where P.W. 6 was working. Therefore,
in our considered opinion the interpolation as also the initials
appended thereto have not been proved and established to be
in the hand of A2 and A1.
16. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and
establish that the alleged interpolation and forgery was done by
either A1, A2 or A4.
17. As earlier noted by us, Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003
stand abated. We allow all the other appeals and set aside the
12
orders of conviction and sentences passed against each of the
accused persons.
18. The bail bonds stand discharged.
……………………………………..J.
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]
……………………………………..J.
[H.L. DATTU]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 25, 2010.