Forgery and use of forged documents upheld where oral evidence proved fake loan papers and expert opinion supported authorship.

Oral testimony of the alleged loan beneficiaries, read with the documentary record, established that the loan applications and related papers were forged because the beneficiaries had neither applied for the loans nor signed the documents. The handwriting expert's opinion reinforced that the disputed signatures matched the appellant, and the challenge to the specimen signatures failed since Section 311A CrPC was not in force for the 1983-1986 occurrence and the amendment was prospective. In any event, the oral evidence alone was sufficient to prove forgery and use of forged documents. The conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant for forgery and using forged documents, particularly on the basis of specimen signatures obtained during investigation and the handwriting expert's opinion.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence showed that the alleged beneficiaries had not applied for loans and had not signed the loan papers. Their oral testimony, read with the documentary record, established that the applications and related documents were forged. The handwriting expert's opinion supported this version by linking the disputed signatures to the appellant. The objection that the specimen signatures were inadmissible failed, because the occurrence related to 1983-1986, when Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not yet in force, and the amendment introducing that provision was prospective. In any event, the oral evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of forgery even apart from the expert opinion.

Conclusion: The High Court was right in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the conviction was upheld and no interference was called for.

---