RAVICHANDRANversusSTATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS

                   [2010] 4 S.C.R. 313


                     RAVICHANDRAN                            A
                             v.
     STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS
         (Criminal Appeal Nos. 909-910 of 2003)

                     MARCH 25, 2010
                                                              B
  [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

     ss. 120-8, 4201120-8, 477A/120-8 and s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of c
Prevention of Corruption Act - Interpolation and forgery in
permit for palmolein oil - Conviction by trial court, affirmed
by High Court - HELD: There is no 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, D
A 1, A2 or A4 - Only because A4 is the brother of A3, it 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 - In the considered opinion
of the Court, the interpolation as· also the initials appended E
thereto have not been proved and established to be in the
hand of A2 and A 1 - The prosecution has miserably failed
to prove and establish that the alleged interpolation and
forgery was done by either A 1, A2 or A4 - Since A-3 died
pending appeal, ·Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003 stand
abated - All the other appeals are allowed, the orders of F
conviction and sentences passed against each of the
accused persons set aside - Abatement of appeal - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.394(2), proviso - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 - ss.5(1)(d)/5(2) - Pondicherry
Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks, Price and G
Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1975 - Clause 4(9) -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - s.7(1)(a)(ii). {para 13,
15-17]

                            313                               H
    314      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A       Rahim Khan vs. Khurshid Ahmed and Others (1974) 2
    SCC 660; and .Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
    1980 SC 531, referred to.

          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
B        s. 394(2), proviso - Application by legal representatives
    for leave to continue the appeal on death of accused-
    appe/lant - Allowed.

                          Case Law Reference:
c         (1974) 2 sec 660         referred to             para 14
          AIR 1980 SC 531          referred to             para 14

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 909-910 of 2003.
0
        From the Judgment & Order dated 31.12.2002 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madra~ in Crl Appeal No. 220 of 1994
    & 222 of 1994.

E                                WITH
    Crl. A. No. 1515-1516, 1527-1528, 805-806, 807-808 & 911-
    912 of 2003.
        R. Venkatarmani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Aljo, R. Nedumaran,
F   Shivaji M. Jadhav, Arvind Kumar, Senthil Jagadeesan, V.
    Ramasubramanian for the Appellant.

       P.P. Malhotra, ASG, M. Chatterjee, P.K. Dey, A. Deb
    Kumar, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.

G         The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

      1. All these appeals involve similar and connected facts.
H Since, the legal issues that arise for our consideration are also
  RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF                   315
             POLICE, MADRAS
similar, we proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this          A
common judgment and order.

     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
                                                                     B
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 of2003 and Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6396-6399 of 2010 in Criminal            C
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.      D
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           E
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,
thus, allowed to be brought on record. The said applications         F
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.         G
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
                                                                     H
    316      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B·· under the provisions of Section 120-8, Section 420 read with
     Section 1208, Section 477A read with Section 1208 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
C 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. 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
D office. Both the aforesaid permits and the counter foil were In
    the handwriting of accused No. 2 which are also initialed and
    signed by A 1 and A2. Subsequently, however, in the permit it
    was detected that there was intflrpolation and forgery in respect
    of shop No. 30. One of such permits indicates that the
E 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
F 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
G 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.

       7. All the accused were examined under Section 313 of
  the Code of Criminal Procedure and on conclusion of the trial,
H the trial Court, in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 1985, convicted all the
   RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF               317
              POLICE, MADRAS
accused persons namely A1-A3 for an offence under Section A
 1208 IPC and sentenced each to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and also convicted them under Section 420 read
with Section 1208 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment and alsb to pay a fine of Rs.
500/- each, in default to undergo one month simple B
imprisonment. The accused persons were further also convicted
under Section 477A read with Section 1208 IPC and sentenced
each to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
Ravichandran, A2 and A 1 were also convicted under Section
5( 1)( d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption c
Act, 1947 read with Section 1208 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 D
Act, 1947 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine 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. E
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 l.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 6 F
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.                        G

    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. H
    318     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   Nos. 220 and 222 of 1994 were filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3
    jointly. The 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
8
    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
C   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
D   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
E   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 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
F   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
G 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
H and consent of the accused persons and therefore, the
  RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF               319
             POLICE, MADRAS
conviction and sentences passed against them are legal and     A
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 B
going through the same, we are of the considered opinion that
there is no 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 C
that he had knowledge that the permit was interpolated when
he had presented it before ihe office of the Federation.

     14. In order to prove that the interpolation and the forgery
was done by A 1 and A2, the prosecution has led evidence of
P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 who have stated that they knew the D
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) E
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· F
    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 G
    between the signature of Rahim Khan on admitted
    documents and 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 H
    320       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A         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:-
B         "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
c         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
D         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
E         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
F   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. 6 has however, nowhere stated in the examination-in-
    chief that the present instance of interpolation or forgery was
G   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
H   Motor Conveyance Section called F2 Section. It has also been
   RAVICHANDRAN v. STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF                321
              POLICE, MADRAS
brought to our notice that in the cross"examination, it was said   A
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 A 1.                       B

     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 A 1, A2 or A4.
                                                                   c
     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 orders of conviction and sentences passed against
each of the accused persons.
                                                                   ·D
       18. The bail bonds stand discharged.

R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.