The lack of corroboration for expert opinion and the fatal delay in the prosecution case can lead to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

1. The Revision Petitioner who is the 2nd Accused has come forward with this Revision Petition challenging his conviction and sentence imposed on him by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai convicting the Petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 471 r/w 465, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo five weeks’ Rigorous Imprisonment for each of the offences. On Appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in CA. No.85/1991 by the order dated 07.07.2003 reduced the sentence to six months’ Rigorous Imprisonment and enhanced the fine amount to Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the present Revision has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner.

2. here are 2 Accused in this case and both of them were convicted by the Trial C Court and as against the conviction and sentence, the first Accused has preferred a separate Appeal and the Appeal has been allowed and the first Accused was acquitted. The Appeal preferred by the revision Petitioner/A2 was dismissed with the modification of sentence alone, as stated above.

3. The background facts of the case in a nut shell are hereunder:

(a) P.W.1 was working as Joint Director of the Employment Exchange. Both P.W.2 and A2/Revision Petitioner have registered their names in the Employment Exchange. The name of P.W.2 is A. Kothandan whereas the name of the Revision Petitioner is M. Kothandam. A2 got a job as Peon in Central Telegraph Office as sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As a result, P.W.2 has given a report-Ex.P.1, to P.W.1 that he has not obtained any job but another person in his name was employed as Peon in the Central Telegraph Office. P.W.1 has stated that he went to the Central Telegraph Office and verified the Employment Exchange Identity Card of A2 and the Signature of A2 is found to be different from the signature found in Form I. Ex.P.2 is the Identity Card given by the Employment Exchange to A2. Thereafter, P.W.1 has given a report to P.W.9, the Inspector of Police who received the report, Ex.P.4 from P.W.1 and registered a case. P.W.10 took up further investigation and examined the witnesses. He seized Ex.P.5-Employment Exchange Identity card of P.W.2 and Ex.P.9-Employmentorder of A2.

(b) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police had taken the specimen signature from the Accused and sent the same to P.W.8-Handwriting Expert for his opinion. P.W.8, on verification of the specimen signature with the signatures in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5, has given a report, Ex.P.13. After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed a charge-sheet against the Accused for the alleged offences as stated above.

4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and filed Exs.P.1 to 19.

5. When the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating material s appearing against them, A1 has stated that the signature found in Ex.P.2 is not his signature and A2 has stated that the signature found in Ex.P.2 is his signature and it is further stated by A2 that he has registered in the Employment Exchange in the year 1970 and renewed it periodically. Both the Accused have not examined any witnesses on their side.

6. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing as the Legal Aid Counsel for the revision Petitioner would vehemently contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing acceptable and admissible evidence. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence of forgery and it is contended that the main allegation of forgery is made only against A1 and as far as A2/Revision Petitioner is concerned, he is said to have used the forged document as genuine one and obtained job as Peon of Central Telegraph Office. It is pointed out that A1 has been acquitted by the Lower Appellate Court as he has preferred a separat