- (1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition under section 3 7 & 401 Cr. P. C. against the judgment and conviction dated 24. 11. 1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1980, maintaining the conviction of accused under sec. 420 and 468 IPC, but acquitting the accused under sec. 419 I. P. C. and also maintaining the sentence under sec 420 and 468 IPC for one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and upheld the judgment and conviction dated 20. 9. 1980 passed by judicial Magistrate Nasirabad in Cr. Case No. 515/77.
(2.) THE complaint filed by Shri P. C. Jain, Deputy Superintendent, Post Office, Ajmer on 2. 7. 1977 before the Judicial Magistrate disclosed that on Ram Swaroop had a Khata No. 205254 in the saving bank account in the post office of Nasirabad. He died and after that his wife Smt. Sushila Devi moved an application for withdrawal of Rs. 3142. 50 through Satnali Post Office. It was found that on 26 4. 74 Rs. 2,000/- and on 3. 5. 74 Rs. 1,000/-and on 22. 7. 74 Rs. 130/- was withdrawn by the accused after making forged signatures of Ram Swaroop on the withdrawal forms. The trial court framed charges under Section 419, 420 and 468 IPC. However after the trial the Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 419, 420 and 468 IPC but in appeal the accused has been acquitted for 419 IPC. For the item of 1,000/- and Rs. 130/- also the accused has been acquitted. The item, of Rs. 2,000/- has been proved to have been withdrawn by the accused on the basis of the forged signatures. Mr. Tibrewal learned counsel for the accused has argued that the forgery has not been proved by the accused and therefore no conviction can be based without the evidence of forgery. He has also argued in the alternative that amount had been paid and therefore, the sentence must be reduced to already undergone. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition. According to him the accused had with-drawn the amount of a widow whose husband was in service.
(3.) THE withdrawal has been made on the basis of forged application form, I have gone through the relevant record referred to by learned counsel for the parties available here and also considered the arguments submitted by both of them. There is no doubt that the withdrawal was based on the basis of a forged document and the accused withdrew the amount, therefore the acceptance of the evidence by the two lower courts is held to be justified. The submission of Mr. Tibrewal that because the witnesses who have proved the withdrawal could have also been accused or likely to be concerned with this amount and therefore they should not be believed, cannot be accepted. ;