The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's actions constituted forgery and cheating under the Indian Penal Code, and the documents submitted did not constitute valuable security under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.

R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal revision filed by Raj Kumar and has been directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.3.1992 passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, C.B.I., Punjab (S. Bhupinder Singh).

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

Border Security Force, New Delhi placed a demand for the supply of woollen jerseys to the office of Director General of Supplies and Disposal, Parliament Street, New Delhi and as a consequence the office of Director General, Supplies and Disposal invited tenders and after completion of various formalities awarded a contract for the supply of the woollen jerseys to the consignees detailed below, to firm M/s Shivalik Knitting Mills, B-32/36, Janta Colony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, Punjab, vide acceptance of tender No. WL- 7/225/115/29.7.83/61/ETC-308/ED 23.12.82/002/COAD dated 27.7.1984 :-

Sr. No. Name and Address of the consignee

1. I.G.B.S.F. Rajasthan, Jodhpur;

2. I.G.B.S.F. Punjab, Jalandhar Cantt;

3. A.D.(P) HQ. IG, BSF/West Bengal, 2-B, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta;

4. JAD(P) BSF, Narangi Road, New Guwahati;

5. Commdt. 25, BN, BSF, Chhawla Camp, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi;

6. Commdt. 88, BN, Bhitaura Camp, Bareilly;

7. Director, B.S.F. Academy, Tikampur, Gawalior.

Clause 19(b) of the contract provided for payment of 95% of the price of the goods of each consignment to the consigner on proof of despatch of the goods/stores to the consignee and on production of Inspection Note issued by the Inspector. Balance of 5% of the price of goods was to be paid to the consigner on the receipt of a certificate from the consignee in proof of receipt of consignment in good condition.

On 30.4.1985, Assistant Inspecting Officer (Tax) Office of the Deputy Director of Inspection (Tex) (DGS&D) Ludhiana, namely, Gurbhagwant Singh Sandhu inspected a lot of 1540 jerseys packed in 31 bales within the premises of firm M/s Shivalik Knitting Mills, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, in the presence of the proprietor of the firm, namely, Raj Kumar Gupta, the present petitioner. On the basis of inspection, inspection note dated 30.4.1985 was prepared on the prescribed proforma indicating the names of the consignees and the consignee as also AT number etc. Thereafter the aforesaid firm booked that consignment of 31 bales of jerseys with the Department of Railways at Ludhiana against Railway Receipt No. 706974 dated June 14, 1985, Ex-Ludhiana to Howrah with Nirmal Tej Singh Bhalla, Goods Supervisor and the receipt-copy of the said receipt was handed over with the representative of the firm. The case of the prosecution further is that after 3/4 hours of the booking of the aforesaid consignment, the consigner made an application dated 14.6.1985 on the letter head of the firm and signed by its proprietor, the petitioner, to the effect that consignment in question had been mistakenly booked by goods train while it was to be carried by a passenger train and requested for the return of the booked goods with Nirmal Tej Singh Bhalla, Goods Supervisor, Railways, Ludhiana, who acted upon the request and cancelled the railway receipt No. 706974 dated 14.6.1985 and returned the goods to the consigner. He also made an entry in the loading-book about the cancellation of the said railway receipt. In fact, these goods were not despatched either from the goods shed or from the parcel office of Northern Railway, Ludhiana, from where packages are booked by the passenger trains. However, the present petitioner submitted Bill No. 1/85-86 dated 14.6.1985 for a sum of Rs. 64,079.40 representing 95% of the price of the goods, and enclosed therewith an attested photostat copy of the railway receipt which was got cancelled by him, inspection note dated 30.4.1985. This bill was submitted by the present petitioner only with a view to cheat the Government of India.

The aforesaid bill, al