Judgment

DWIVEDI, J.:- The appellant, Hira Lal Jain, is an Advocate, Along with Jhumman Singh, Mst. Shanti, Dina Nath, Mst. Ram Wati and Mst. Chameli, he has been committed to the Court of Session for trial for the offences under S. 120B read with Ss. 419, 420, 511 and S. 467 read with S. 471 I. P. C. He applied to the High Court of Delhi for quashing the commitment order against him. The High Court dismissed his revision. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. The prosecution case is this: A certain piece of land situate in village Tehkhand (Delhi) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Ss. 30 and 31 of the said Act. The reference was numbered 96 of 1964 in the Court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Delhi, Shri D. R. Dhameja. Along with the reference the Land Acquisition Collector also sent a cheque for the amount of compensation settled by him to the Court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge. The said court directed payment of Rs. 4726.70 to each of the following persons: (1) Rattan Singh s/o Gopal; (2) Nand Lal s/o Gopal (3) Singh Raj s/o Gopal; (4) Mst. Kalawati d/o Gopal; (5) Mst. Chameli, d/o Gopal; and (6) Smt. Kadmi widow of Gopal. The total amount to be distributed among them was Rs. 28360.20 p. In July 1964 the aforesaid accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain payment of the aforesaid amount by fraud, forgery and impersonation. To that end applications were filed on their behalf by the appellant. The applications were accompanied by vakalatnamas filed by the appellant. It was alleged in the applications that the accused other than the appellant were the rightful claimants of the amount and that the amount should be paid to them. The application purporting to be on behalf of Rattan Singh (a real claimant) was signed by the appellant as his counsel. On the application purporting to be on behalf of Nand Lal (another real claimant) the appellant verified "I personally know Nand Lal s/o Gopal. He has signed in my presence. In case of wrong payment, I shall be responsible to refund the amount." The verification was signed by him.

3. On October 24, 1964, Shri D. R. Dhameja directed that payment should be made to the applicants (who were the accused). Thereafter vouchers were prepared. One of the vouchers was prepared in the name of the appellant, for, earlier he had made an application on behalf of Rattan Singh praying that the vouchers should be drawn in his name. The treasury vouchers were prepared in the names of the accused on November 7, 1964.

4. On November 17, 1964, the real Rattan Singh appeared before Shri D. R. Dhameja and claimed payment 2599 of the amount due to him. His application brought to light the alleged criminal conspiracy of the accused. Thereupon payment was stopped and four of the vouchers could not be cashed. Jhumman Singh, however, was able to cash the voucher drawn in the name of Singh Raj. The appellant also cashed the voucher for the amount payable to Rattan Singh. It appears from the First Information Report that out of the voucher amount he has appropriated a sum of Rs. 1400/- to himself as his fee. It appears that this amount was deposited in his account in the Punjab National Bank Ltd. Kashmiri Gate. The balance of the voucher amount was deposited in the account of Rattan Singh in the State Bank of India.

5. In the commitment proceedings the prosecution produced only documentary evidence. No oral evidence was given. The documentary evidence consists of the vakalatnamas and the applications filed on behalf of the accused, other than the appellant, by the appellant, the vouchers and the documents of encashment of vouchers and the opinion of the hand-writing expert to the effect that the signatures and thumb impressions of the accused on the application and vakalatnamas tally with their specimen signatures and thumb impressions.

6. This is the entire documentary evidence. While committing the accused to the court of