Prosecution must prove intent and knowledge of forgery to sustain a conviction under IPC Section 466.

1. This is a revision application under S.439, Criminal P. C., against a conviction under S.466, Indian Penal Code and sentence of three years' R. I., passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tripura, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tripura.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused had forged a residential permit (Ext. P - 2), purporting to have been issued by the Registration Officer, Agartala, permitting one Miss. Rekha Rani Saha to remain in India until 13-8-60.

3. The prosecution case, mainly, rests on the evidence of P. W. 6, the hand writing expert who deposed in his evidence that on a comparison of Exts P - 5, P - 6, P - 7 and P - 8 (a), P - 8 (b) and P - 8 (c), which purport to be the standard hand - writings of the accused - petitioner with the impugned residential permit (Ext. P - 2), he came to the conclusion that the authorship of Ext. P - 2 is that of the same person who had written Exts. P - 5, P - 6, P - 7, P - 8(a), P - 8 (b) and P - 8 (c).

4. On a careful perusal of the evidence it is, however, to be found that there is no evidence, whatsoever, connecting the authorship of Exts P - 5 and P - 6 to the accused - petitioner. Thus, any conclusion drawn on basis of a comprove Exts P - 8 (a), P - 8 (b) and P - 8 (c) them to be the standard hand - writings of the accused - petitioner, is without any value whatsoever.

5. We have now to see how far it has been proved by the prosecution that the remaining standard hand writings and signatures are in the authorship of the accused - petitioner. As regards Ext. P - 7, the prosecution produced P. W. 14, Harendra Chandra Dey, who in his examination - in - chief stated that the entries in Ext. P - 7 were in the handwriting of Satya Shome, the accused - petitioner. In course of his cross - examination however, he admitted that - "Satya Shome has never written in my presence."
On such evidence or rather lack of evidence, it cannot be held that Ext. P - 7 has at all been identified to be in the hand - writing of the accused - petitioner.

6. The prosecution sought to prove Exts P - 8 (a), P - 8 (b) and P - 8 (c) through P. W. 9 and P. W. 11. P. W. 9, Satyendra Nath Dutta, states in his examination - in - chief that - "the signature of Satya Shome is known to me as he was for some time at Agartala Passport Section. The signatures as Satya Shome at page 5 of Acquittance Roll Ext. P - 8 are of Satya Shome. These two are marked Exts P - 8 (a) and P - 8 (b). The signature of Satya Shome was known to me as he used to draw his pay in my presence." In other words, the occasion for his acquaintance with Satya Shome's signature, was when the latter used to sign his name at the time of drawing his pay, in presence of this witness at Agartala Passport Section. In course of his cross - examination, this witness, however, states - "there is no paper in this Court to show that Satya Shome ever received any pay from our office." In view of the fact that there is no documentary evidence, whatsoever, that Satya Shome ever received any pay from Agartala Passport Section Office, the deposition of P. W. 9 that he had seen Satya Shome's signatures, when the latter drew his pay in his presence at Agartala, can hardly be relied upon.

7. The prosecution is, therefore, left with the evidence of only P. W. 11, Sachindra Chandra Das, who has identified the signature in Ext. P - 8 (c) as that of the accused - petitioner, Satya Shome. In other words, I find that only document on basis of which a comparison could have safely been made by the hand writing expert, P. W. 6. was Ext.