A. Mateen, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1980 passed by Sri K.P. Asthana, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 174 of 1978, whereby acquitting the accused-respondent, after setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.8.1978 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (C.B.I.), Lucknow, in Case No. 250 of 1976. The crux of the matter as emerges out that Surendra Kumar Saxena, accused respondent, while working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the District Office of the Food Corporation of India, Kanpur during the year 1973 in collusion with co-accused Indrajit Singh, Proprietor of Bhatia Medical Stores, Gwaltoli, Kanpur and others prepared and submitted false medical reimbursement bills will forged prescription, essentiality certificates and cash-memos regarding purchase of medicines under the forged verifications and signatures of one Dr. S.K. Kapoor, then practising at Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 200.55 paise with respect to the treatment of the wife, son and father of Surendra Kumar Saxena, accused-respondent, which was allowed and the aforesaid amount was paid to him. Later on, after receipt of the said claim amount of the respondent and payment, which was made to him, it was revealed to the officers of the Corporation that it was a false claim and FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted by Sri S.R. Jaiswal (P.W. 13), Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Lucknow, who after completing the investigation and collecting the expert report submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent and one co-accused, namely, Indrajit Singh Bhatia. Accused respondent Surendra Kumar Saxena was charged under sections 120-B, 420 and 471 read with section 468 Indian Penal Code of which he denied the charges and stated to have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
(2.) Surendra Kumar Saxena, accused respondent admitted the receipt of Rs. 200.55 paise as medical reimbursement submitted by him with respect to the treatment of his wife, son and father; but stated that they did receive medical treatment of which medical reimbursement bills were submitted that at that time he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kanpur because of his serious illness. Although the other co-accused Indrajit Singh Bhatia admitted the issue of cash-memos from his medical stores; but had stated that since the prescriptions had been brought to his medical store, the sale of medicines was done and cash-memos were prepared to evidence the sale of medicines.
(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 15 witnesses, P.W. 1 Dr. S.K. Kapoor denied to have issued the disputed prescriptions and also denied his signatures on the essentially certificates and the verifications made on the cash-memos pertaining to the medical reimbursement claim made by Surendra Kumar Saxena. R.S. Saxena (P.W. 2) as Assistant in the office of Food Corporation of India, Kanpur collected the said medical reimbursement amount on the authority issued to him by the appellant respondent Surendra Kumar Saxena, S.K. Shukla (P.W. 3), another employee of the said Corporation proved the signatures of accused respondent Surendra Kumar Saxena, marked as Exts. Ka-27 to Ka-44. Manoj Kumar (P.W. 4) another employee of the Corporation was a witness of taking possession of certain documents by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 5 R.N. Single another employee of the Corporation has stated that the signatures of accused respondent S.K. Saxena were obtained on the documents (Exts. Ka-30 to Ka-44). P.W. 6 Sri Amar Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents proved the writings of both the accused respondents on the disputed documents. P.W. 7 Ram Narain proved the specimen signatures of Surendra Kumar Saxena taken by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 K.C. Tripathi proved the specimen signatures of accused Indrajit Singh taken by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 9 J.N. Shukla proved the specimen signatures of accused Indrajit Singh. P.W. 10 Hari Shanker Singh, an employee of the Corporation proved the signatures of accused S.K. Saxena on the disputed documents. P.W. 11 S.P. Saxena, an employee of the Corporation took the reimbursement amount from the Corporation on the authorities given to him by the wife of accused respondent Surendra Kumar Saxena. P.W. 12 S.P. Bhasin, another employee of the Corporation proved the signatures of accused Surendra Kumar Saxena on certain documents. P.W. 13 S.R. Jaiswal, Deputy S.P., C.B.I., investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against both the accused. P.W. 14 Raj Kumar, an employee of Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur proved the Bed Head Ticket concerning accused S.K. Saxena. P.W. 15 Dr. Kedar Nath attended accused S.K. Saxena, when he remained admitted in the aforesaid hospital. The defence in its turn examined four witnesses. D.W. 1 Dr. J.P. Dixit, D.W. 2 A.S. Kapoor, Hand Writing Expert, D.W. 3 S.K. Chauhan, an employee of the Corporation and D.W. 4 S.K. Shukla, another employee of the Corporation.;