The judgment underscores the necessity of specific charges, compliance with legal procedures, and the requirement for corroborative evidence to support expert opinions in criminal cases.

Accused in Calendar Case No. 128 of 1993 on the file of the First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem is the appellant in the above appeal. Initially the appellant herein was charge sheeted under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. along with two others. Subsequently the case was tried only against the appellant and, by the impugned judgment, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, convicted him of the offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under each of the two offences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the above appeal before this Court. For convenience I shall refer the appellant as accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused is a friend of one Kaliappa Gounder, father of one K. Prakash who has been examined as P.W.1. They are residing in Kumalankuttai, Erode. In 1991 when P.W.1 was enquired by the police regarding ownership of a Maruthi Gipsy Jeep, he replied that he had not purchased any such vehicle. It is the case of P.W.1 that after some time, the accused enquired his address, avocation etc., as he is distantly related to him. According to P.W.1, since the accused was known to him, he furnished all the details including his address. When the accused was brought by the police, the accused made a statement that he purchased a Maruthi Gipsy jeep impersonating his (P.W.1's) signature. On seing the signature signed by the accused, P.W.1 has stated that it was not his signature. One Kanagasabapathy was examined as P.W.2. He is residing in Easwaran Koil Street, Erode and doing textile (javuli) business. He has showed the signatures of P.W.1. One Rajamanickam, the then Village Administrative Officer of Navapatti, Mettur Taluk has been examined as P.W.4. According to him, on 24-2-91 he was summoned by two police constables of Mettur Police Station. He went to Mettur Police Station, where the Inspector of Police enquired the accused and obtained a confessional statement from him (accused) in his (P.W.4's) presence. The admissible portion of his statement is marked as Ex.P-4. Then the accused took them to his house, where he produced a receipt. The Inspector of Police seized the receipt under a mahazar in which P.W.4-the Village Administrative Officer put his signature. The accused and P.W.4-Village Administrative Officer were again taken to the Police Station and on direction by the Inspector of Police, the accused put his signatures in 3 blank papers, in which P.W.4 attested. The signed papers have been marked as Ex.P-5 series. Again the accused was asked to write a matter in one paragraph and he accordingly wrote the same and put his signature thereunder. The same was also attested by P.W.4. P.W.5-Sithan when he was working as Head Clerk in Judicial Magistrate's Court-No.3, Erode, received a requisition-Ex.P-6 from the Inspector of Police, to send the records seized in Mettur Town P.S. Crime No. 98/91 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per Ex.P-7 letter, he sent the documents to the Assistant Director, Chennai for examination. Ex.P-9 is the copy of the letter sent by the Court. Ex.P-8 is the letter received from the Inspector on 24-3-91 and Ex.P-10 is the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. One Christopher Rajasekar who was working as Branch Manager in Union Motors Services Private Limited at Trichy during the year 1990-91, was examined as P.W.6. He deposed before the Court that the accused booked a Maruthi Gipsy jeep in the name of Prakash. The accused brought two Demand Drafts, one for Rs.1,48,000/- and another for Rs.6,000/-. The various signatures including the signature in question were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The handwriting expert was examined as P.W.8 and his report marked as Ex. P-10. The Inspector of Police has been examined as P.W.10 and the Officer who registered the First Information R