The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22-12-1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura in G.R. Case No. 291/1990, acquitting the respondents from the charges punishable under S.120B, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Facts, briefly, giving rise to this appeal are that on 29-6-1990 at about 1445 hours, PW No. 26 Sri Debatosh Datta, the Project Manager of DRDA, Kailashahar, lodged a report with the Officer Incharge, Kailashahar Police Station to the effect that during the period from 27-8-1988 to 5-2-1990 eight cheques of United Bank of India and two cheques of Tripura Gramin Bank, which were not issued from the DRDA, Kailashahar. Were presented before the aforesaid Banks and encashed a total sum of Rs. 2,01,300/- (Rupees two lakhs one thousand and three hundred) only by forgoing his signature.

4. That, during the course of investigation the respondents were arrested and the Investigating Officer, having been found out a prima facie case, submitted charge sheet against the respondents under S.468/409/420/471 of IPC. Subsequently, the charges were framed against the respondents by the learned Trial Court under S.120B/380/409/419/420/468/471 of the IPC, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondents, examined 36 witnesses and exhibited as many as 45 documents. The respondents were examined under S.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the examination of the prosecution witnesses were closed but no defence witness was produced and examined.

5. That, the learned Trial Court, considering the available documentary as well as oral evidences on record, arrived at the findings that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the respondents were acquitted on the benefit of doubt and set them at liberty by the impugned judgment dated 22-12-1999.

6. Being aggrieved, the State preferred this appeal on the grounds that (1) the learned Trial Court committed manifest error both in law. and facts while passing the impugned order; (2) the findings of the learned Trial Court is perverse and not based on facts and the evidences on record; (3) no reason has been given for not relying on the confessional statement of the accused and (4) the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the expert regarding the factum of forgery of the cheques in question.

7. Perused the evidences on record carefully, there is no evidence on record the indicate that the cheques in question were entrusted with the respondents in their capacity of public servants or in discharge of their official duties. There was no report about the loss of cheques in question from the office of the DRDA, Kailashahar prior to 29th June, 1990. The prosecution case is that the cheques in question were never issued by the Office of the DRDA, Kailashahar, but presented these cheques by forging the signature of the Project Officer, DRDA, Kailashahar (PW No. 26/informant) and withdrawn a total sum of Rs. 2,01,300/-(Rupees Two lakhs one thousand and three hundred) only.

8. That, PW No. 26 Sri Debatosh Datta. the Project Director of DRDA, Kailashahar, during the period from