These revision petitions are directed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial court and the Appellate Court finding the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. There was a further direction that the amount seized by the police – the amount due under Ext.P11 cheque, which was fraudulently encashed by the accused, be returned to the drawer of the cheque.

2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, a postal employee, intercepted a postal cover addressed to PW2 enclosing Ext.P10 cheque. Ext.P10 cheque was drawn in the name of PW2 for $ 20,000. The same was issued by one Thomas J. Dennelly. The accused allegedly forged Ext.P8 letter. He made it to appear that Ext.P8 letter was being written by PW2 was shown to return Ext.P10 cheque to the said Donnely with a request to him to issue a cheque in the name of the accused. Accordingly the said Thomas J. Donnelly received back Ext.P10 cheque and issued Ext.P11 cheque, which was forwarded to PW2 along with Ext.P9 letter under registered post. Ext.P9 letter sent under registered post was also intercepted by the accused, who got it encashed in an account opened by him in the State Bank of Travancore. Thus, in short, the allegation is that the accused by his fraudulent conduct induced Thomas J. Donnelly to issue Ext.P11 cheque in the name of the accused. He allegedly intercepted the same in post illegally and misappropriated the same. To facilitate this he had forged Ext.P8 letter and Ext.P17 acknowledgment and had also caused Ext.P10 (a) endorsement to be made on Ext.P10 cheque.

3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and proved Exts.P1 to 34. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to 8 were marked.

4. PW1 is the Magistrate, who recorded Exts.P1 to P3, 164 statements of PWs.9, 8 and 6. PW2 is a Christian Priest, to whom Shri. Donnelly allegedly intended to make the payment. He proved Exts.P4 ton P13. PWs, 3 to 5 and 12 are officials of the Banks. Accused had approached PW3 to encash Ext.P11 cheque. PW3 had taken him to PW4, who, in turn, had contacted PW5 to ascertain the procedure for encashment of an overseas cheque. PW5 is the banker of PW2 also. Since the accused did not approach PW5 to encash the cheque, PW5 got suspicious and informed PW2. That is show that the cheque was encashed in an account newly opened by the accused in his bank for this purpose.

5. PW6 is a Postmaster of the Post Office where the accused was working. She proved EXts.P15 to P18. These documents are produced to show that a registered letter addressed to PW2 was handed over by her to the accused for delivery to P.W.2 on 13.10.1987. It was not delivered on 13.10.1987. But it was shown to have been delivered on 14.10.1987 under Ext.P17. PWs 7 and 9 are persons operating typewriting Institutes. They are examined by the oprosecuti9on to show that Exts. P5, P6 and P8 were got prepared by them at the instance of the accused. P.W.9 turned hostile to the prosecution. He did not, of course, identify the accused. PWs 8 and 10 are attestors to seizure mahazars. PW11 is an official of the Post Office and he proved Exts. P21 and 22. Ext.P21 is an extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to PW11, who was the official of the Postal Department entrusted with the responsibility of enquiring into the alleged misconduct in employment committed by the accused. P.W.13 is the expert who submitted Ext.P31 report to confirm that Ext.P10(a) endorsement on Ext.P10 cheque is not written and signed by P.w.2 P.Ws.14 and 15 are the Investigating Officers who had roles to play in the registration of the crime, its investigation and the filing of charge sheet.

6. The accused took the stand that he is not guilty. He admitted that Ext.P11 cheque was encashed by him. He did not raise a contention that Ext.P11 cheque was issued to him directly by Thomas J. Donnely, According to him, it was P.W.2 who handed over the said cheque to him. P.W.2 had