The prosecution must provide compelling evidence, including expert testimony on handwriting, to substantiate charges of cheating and forgery; mere witness accounts are insufficient for a conviction.

1. The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi in CRLREV No.21 of 2003 and the petitioner Achyutananda Panda in CRLREV No.17 of 2003 faced trial for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.') in the Court of learned Addl. C.J.M. -cum- Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No.43 of 1994 for committing criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and dishonestly and fraudulently using the forged document as genuine one.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2002 found both the petitioners guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more on each count for the offences under sections 120- B/420/468 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under section 471 of the I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The petitioner Hrudananda Sethi preferred Criminal Appeal No.16/24 of 2002 and the petitioner Achyutananda Panda preferred Criminal Appeal No.12/23 of 2002 and both the appeals were heard analogously by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhubaneswar and vide common impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2002, the learned Appellate Court upheld the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court and sentence passed thereunder and dismissed both the criminal appeals.

Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same case, with the consent of the parties, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Prosecution Case:

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of source information, first information report (Ext.56) was registered on 08.02.1994 initially against the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi, Postal Assistant and one Kartika Chandra Mohanty, authorized postal agent of Jajpur Road Railway Station Sub-post office on the accusation that they conspired with each other and in pursuance of such conspiracy, the postal department was cheated to the tune of Rs.32,831/- during the period from 14.06.1993 to 20.10.1993 by forging the signatures of the depositors and they took payment of withdrawals in respect of depositors Arjuna Sethi (P.W.1), Janaki Ballav Pradhan (P.W.2), Ramakanta Sahu (P.W.3) and Gangadhara Nayak (P.W.4).

P.W.9 Gopabandhu Pati, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar during investigation of the case found that there was a withdrawal of Rs.8,500/- (rupees eight thousand five hundred) on 20.10.1993 from S.B. A/c. No.132441 standing in the name of P.W.1 who deposited his pass book on 08.06.1993 with the petitioner Hrudananda Sethi under proper acknowledgement, but the petitioners made payment to one Aruna Chandra Sethi through messenger P.K. Sethi after verifying the specimen signature. The A/c. holder P.W.1 denied to have received the payment and as such it was concluded that the petitioners are liable under sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. It was also found that the petitioners who verified the specimen signature, have fraudulently taken a withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) on 14.06.1993 from R.D. A/c. No.11508 standing in the name of P.W.4. It was also revealed that the petitioners made a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) on 26.06.1993 from R.D. A/c. No.11569 without the knowledge of P.W.3, the A/c. ho