P.N. Goel, J. - (1.) THE four appellants residents of village Khamokhar, police station Mahuli, district Basti have been convicted under Section 467, I.P.C. simpliciter on a complaint filed by Ram Narain (P.W. 1) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years. Ram Narain and Dudhai (P.Ws. 1 and 3) are real brothers. THEy are natives of the village of the appellants. THEy inherited property from their maternal grand-father of village Koriyar. THErefore, they migrated to Koriyar about 20 years ago. THEy had two plots No. 264-A and 264-B in village Khamokhar. THE appellants are their first cousins. Undisputedly atleast a portion of the land of Khamokhar belonging to Ram Narain and Dudhai was used to be cultivated by the appellants. On October 14, 1971 the sale-deed Ex. Ka-12 of the two plots mentioned above for Rs, 4,000/- came into existence. On the basis of this sale-deed the appellants moved an application for mutation. Notice of this application was served upon Ram Narain and Dudhai. THEreupon they came to know of the sale-deed. On December 3, 1971, Ram Narain filed complaint that he and Dudhai had not executed any sale-deed in favour of the appellants and that the appellants had set up some false persons to execute the sale-deed in their favour. Defence of the appellants was that they had paid the sale consideration and expenses of the execution of the sale-deed to Ram Narain, that, later on they were handed over sale-deed and, therefore, they moved mutation application. THEy further contended that later on, on October 21, 1974 Ram Narain and Dudhai executed another sale-deed Ex. C-l of the disputed land for Rs. 4,000/-in their favour. On the objection Ram Narain and Dudhai mutation application of the appellants was rejected on January 5, 1972 vide Ex. Ka-15. To prove its case the complainant Ram Narain examined himself, Lalsa, Dudhai, Shiv Shanker Pandey, T.H. Siddiqi and Shyam Behari Lal (P.Ws. 1 to 6). Shyam Behari Lal is a clerk in the registration office. He brought register No. 8 in which thumb marks of the executants of the deeds are taken at the registration office. Shyam Behari Lal brought the relevant register in respect of the sale-deed dated October 14, 1971 T.H. Siddiqi (P.W. 5) is hand-writing and finger print expert. He compared the specimen thumb marks of Ram Narain and Dudhai with the thumb marks of register No. 8 of the registration office and the thumb marks of the executants taken in the registration office at the time of registration at the back of the first stamp of the sale-deed. He found that the disputed thumb marks were not of Ram Narain and Dudhai. Shiv Shanker Pandey (P.W. 4) is an Advocate. He had identified Ram Narain and Dudhai before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration or the sale-deed. He knew Ram Manorath appellant from before. He simply stated that at the instance of Ram Manorath, he identified the executants before the Sub-Registrar. He did not know Ram Narain and Dudhai from, before. Ram Narain and Dudhai simply stated that they had not executed the sale-deed dated Oct. 4, 1971, that they had not thumb marked on the sale-deed in question and that they had not appeared in the Registration Office. Lalsa (P.W. 2) stated that he was present in the registration office at the time of the registration of the sale-deed and that at that time all the four appellants were there. THE 1st Additional Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellants under Section 467, I.P.C. THE learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State have been heard and record examined. THE contention of the appellants' counsel is that the appellants could not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 467, I.P.C. Section 467 punishes a person who forges a document which purported to be a valuable security. THE term 'forgery' has been defined in Section 463. It says, whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, commits forgery, Expression 'making false document' has been defined in Section 464 in the following manner: "A person is said to make a false document, who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document........"In the present case there is no evidence worth the name that the appellants had actually thumb marked on the sale-deed in place of Ram Narain and Dudhai. THE prosecution has not proved any sign or seal of the appellants on the sale-deed in question. THErefore, it is obvious that the appellants did not forge the sale-deed. In view of this, none of the appellants can be convicted under Sec-ton 467, I.P.C. THE allegation of the complainant is that the appellants moved an application for mutation on the basis of the forged sale-deed. In other words, the appellants used as genuine a forged document. This offence is punishable under Section 471, I.P.C. but the court below did not frame a charge under this section, the charge that was framed is under Section 467, I.P.C. It does not even mention that the appellants used the sale-deed in question as genuine. THErefore, on the basis of the charge which was framed against the appellants and upon which the appellants were tried they cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. As the sale-deed is in favour of the appellants, they can be taken as abettors of the forgery. But this is subject to one condition and it is that the prosecution proved that they had abetted the execution of a forged document. On this point the prosecution examined two witnesses Lalsa and Shiv Shanker Pandey. Lalsa stated that he was present in the registration office at the time of the registration of the document. On the date of the registration of the sale-deed he had gone to Basti to obtain an extract from the Lekhpal, but he did not find the Lekhpal in the Tehsil. He then stated that he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is not really understood why he should have gone the office of sub-Registrar. THE Lekh-pal is not supposed to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It will further be noticed that acording to Lalsa he met Dudhai 10-12 days after the registration of the sale deed, and asked whether Ram Narain and Dudhai other than him and his brother lived in their village. THEn he told Dudhai about the sale-deed. If this statement is correct Dudhai must have informed his brother Ram Narain. Statement of Ram Narain reveals that he came to know of the sale-deed in question after the receipt of notice of the mutation case and after having perused the mutation application. This part of his statement clearly belies the testimony of Lalsa. With regard to the testimony of Shiv Shanker Pandey, it is clear that he identified such person before the Sub-Registrar whom he did not know from before. Reliance can hardly be placed on the testimony of such a person.' THE result of what has been discussed above is that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Lalsa and Shiv Shanker Pandey. THErefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 467 I.P.C. with the aid of section 109 I.P.C. In view of what has been dealt with above, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed and the order dated June 5, 1975 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge Basti convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 467 I.P.C. is set aside. THE appellants are on bail to which they shall not surrender. THEir bail bonds are discharged.;