IMPORTANT POINT
Wrongful loss is not a necessary ingredient for establishing the offense of forgery; the mere act of using forged documents suffices to constitute the offense.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Cr. Appeal No.1168/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1173/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1183/2019 arise out of RC Case No.15(A)/2009 and Cr. Appeal No.1166/2019, Cr. Appeal No.1167/2019 and Cr. Appeal No.1172/2019 arise out of R.C. Case No.17(A)/2009-R. Since all these appeals raise common question of facts and law and therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by the common judgment.

2. Gravamen of allegation as disclosed in the prosecution case of both RC Case No.15(A)/2009 and RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R is that bitumen used in road construction was not procured from Public Sector Unit (PSU) as per the terms of the work contract, but from outside sources and the payment was released to the contractors on fake and forged invoices purported to be issued by PSU.

3. Engineers Surendra Prasad and Vindhyachal Singh @ Bindhyachal Singh are alleged to have counter signed the fake bitumen invoices in criminal conspiracy with contractor Upendra Prasad for release of bills to the tune of Rs.85,91,443/- in RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R. Bitumen was procured for the execution of work contract for improvement of Bano PWD Road to Pabura Nimtur Pangur Path for 10 Kms.

4. Engineers Surendra Prasad and Onkar Prasasd Gupta are alleged to have counter signed the fake bitumen invoices in criminal conspiracy with contractor Uma Chandra Prasad Keshri for release of bills to the tune of Rs.41,95,611/- in RC Case No.15(A)/2009. Bitumen was procured for the execution of work contract for maintenance and repair of Lachargarh-Jaldega Road for 11 Kms.

CHARGE & CONVICTION

5. In both the cases Engineers and the Contractors were jointly put on trial. In 15(A)/2009 Surendra Prasad and Onkar Prasad Gupta, the then Assistant and Junior Engineers, were jointly charged under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act for dishonestly and fraudulently certifying by countersigning four forged bitumen invoices submitted by co-accused Uma Chandra Prasad Keshri, the contractor and thereby facilitating the passing of bill and making payment to the contractor causing wrongful loss of Rs.6,94,196/-. Surendra Prasad and Onkar Prasad Gupta were jointly charged along with Uma Chandra Prasad Keshri, for entering into a criminal conspiracy by abusing their official position by counter signing the forged bitumen invoices and making entries in measurement books thereby committing offence punishable under Section 120B read with 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Uma Chandra Prasad Keshri and Surendra Prasad have been convicted in RC Case No.15(A)/2009 for offence under Section 420, 468, 471 read with 120B of the IPC and under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. They have also been convicted along with Onkar Prasad Gupta under these Sections and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment.

6. In RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R Surendra Prasad and Vindhyachal Singh, the then Assistant and Junior Engineers, have been jointly charged under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act for dishonestly and fraudulently certifying by countersigning twelve forged bitumen invoices by co-accused Upendra Prasad, the then contractor and thereby, passing the bill and making payment to the contractor causing wrongful loss of Rs.18,15,714/-. Surendra Prasad and Vindhyachal Singh were jointly charged with Upendra Prasad for entering into a criminal conspiracy by abusing their official position by counter signing the forged bitumen invoices and making entries in measurement books thereby committing offence punishable under Section 120B read with 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Vindhyachal Singh and Surendra Prasad have been convicted in RC Case No.17(A)/2009-R for offence under Section 420, 468, 471 read with 120B of the IPC and under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Upendra Prasad has been convicted and sentence for the offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7. The main plank of argument on behalf of the appellants is that prosecution has fai