ORDER
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. In this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Siwam Sesha Chalapati Rao, assails the Judgements of the Courts below holding him guilty of the charges under Sections 420/511 and 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, arid sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 420/511, I.P.C. and a further period of two years' R.I. on each count under Sections 467 and 471, I.P.C., all the sentence to run concurrently.
2. The case was initiated on the report submitted by the Asst. Controller of Accounts, Shri L.K. Das (P.W. 14) stating therein, inter alia, that on 30th of March, 1974 at about 10.30 A.M. the accused who was the Head Asst. of the Designs Department of the Rourkala Steel Plant approached him in his Office saying that he had brought the Bill of Belaji Printing Press and requested him for immediate payment, but the informant directed him to present the Bill to the Office. The Office Assistant after receiving the Bill consulted him if it could be passed on that day as that was the last day of the Financial Year. The accused again approached the informant and reiterated his request for passing the Bill immediately so that he could collect the cheque from the payment counter. At the time of final checking of the Bill it was found that the amount was heavy, more than Rs. 20,000/-. The accused was informed that it required further examination. When the concerned Department which had purportedly passed the Bill was consulted, the assistant of the said Department denied to have passed any such Bill of Balaji Printing Press. Thereafter the report was submitted to the Plant-Site Police Station, Rourkela.
3. The investigation which was initiated by the local police was completed by the C.B.I., In course of investigation, it was found that the accused was having the Printing Press under the name and style of Sri Balaji Printing Press under the proprietorship of his wife Smt. Madhabilata Patnaik since 1970. It was further revealed that taking advantage of his official position as Head Asst. in Hindusthan Steel Ltd., Rourkela the accused used to get orders for supply of materials by the said Press. In the year 1974 he forged the writings of various officials of the Steel Plant and presented a faked bill amounting to Rs. 20,330/- to the Asst. Controller of Accounts for payment along with the necessary papers on 30th March, 1974. The investigation further disclosed that the Steel Plant Authorities never placed orders for supply of tracing paper for which the bill was submitted and all the papers filed along with the bill were forged. At the close of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused for committing the offences under Sections 420/511 and 467 and 471, I.P.C.
4. The plea of the accused was complete denial. He denied having any connection with the Balaji Printing Press and also denied to have presented the bill in question. He took the further plea that he left Rourkela on 29th March, 1974 and returned to the town on the night of the 30th of March, 1974.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses, including P. Ws. 1 to 5 who were connected with passing of the bill and the documents filed with it who disowned their wirtings on those documents, P. Ws. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14, all employees of the Accounts Department who testified about the presentation of the bill and the connected documents by the accused and the strenuous attempts made by him to get the bill passed for payment on the last day of the Financial Year, P.W. 15, the Magistrate before whom specimen writings of the accused were taken, P.W. 17, the Handwriting Expert, P.W. 18, an employee of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. who proved the identity card issued to the accused wherein Madhabilata Patnaik was shown as one of the dependants of the accused and P.W. 19, the Investigating Officer. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused, D.W. 1, an Asst. of the Accounts Section for producing the diary of the section to show that the bill was received on 29th/30th March, 1974, D.W. 2, a hotel keeper carrying on business near Balaji Printing Press, Kacheri Road, Rourkela and D.W. 3 in support of the plea that the accused had left Rourkela on 29th March, 1974 and returned to Rourkela at 9 P.M. of 30th march, 1974.
6. As noticed earlier, both the Courts below on assessment of the materials on record held that the prosecution successfully established the charges against the accused and accordingly passed the Orders of conviction and sentence against him.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument has urged the following points:
(a) The petitioner's connection with Balaji Printing Press was not properly established.
(b) The bill was not a valuable document since it had not been passed for payment. Therefore, Section 467, I.P.C. was not attracted in the case.
(c) No material was produced showing that the petitioner had knowledge that the documents were forged.
(d) The petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to examine withnesses in support of his case.
(e) The petitioner was entitled to the benefits under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supported the judgments of the Courts below on all aspects. According to the learned Counsel, all the above mentioned points were raised before the courts below and on being duly and properly considered were rejected.
8. Perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the court considered all the above mentioned submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, assessed the relevant materials thoroughly and agreeing with the findings of the trial court negatived them. In paragraph 11 of the judgment the court considered the question whether the accused was prejudiced in defending his case before the trial court. On consideration, the court negatived the contention holding that there was no substance in the allegation that the learned Magistrate had given out in open court that he will not give opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witness, P.W. 14. The court also negatived the submission that prejudice was caused to the defence due to the failure of the trying Magistrate to summon the witness for defence though an application for the purpose was filed on 22-6-79. Regarding the charge under Section 420 read with Section 511, I.P.C. the court on analysis formulated the following questions for consideration:
(i) Whether the appellant presented the bill;
(ii) Whether the persons purported to have signed the bill have really signed;
(iii) Whether the articles were really supplied for which price was claimed; and
(iv) Whether the appellant was out to receive the money for goods supplied by the Balaji Printing Press?
On assessment of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 6,7,9, 10 and 14 the questions were answered against the accused. No palpable error or illegality or misconception has been pointed out in the assessment of the evidence of these witnesses. 1 have also perused their evidence to satisfy myself about the assessment by the court below. I find no scope to interfere with the findings within the limits of the revisional powers of this Court. In view of the evidence of these witnesses which was rightly accepted by the courts below, the argument relating to the defect in the evidence of the handwriting expert and the comparison of the disputed handwritings with those taken from the accused in presence of the Magistrate (P.W. 15) is not of much relevance. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chait Ram v. State of Haryana : 1979CriLJ1411 conviction under Sections 420/511, I.P.C. cannot safely be based merely on the evidence of the handwriting expert. But such is not the case here. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that the writings on the bill were in the hand of the accused and they were forged. However the court on consideration of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 12, 15 and 17 also did not find any infirmity in collection of the handwriting of the accused before the Magistrate and the opinion of the handwriting expert. The appellate court also negatived the plea of alibi taken by the accused on consideration of the evidence of D.W. 3, I also do not find any palpable error in the said finding.
9. The other point which was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the bill presented by the accused had not been passed for payment. Therefore it was not 'property' as envisaged in Section 420, I.P.C. This contention was also raised before the appellate court and it was negatived The contention is based on the that in order to be 'property' as envisaged in section 420, I.P.C. the bill must have been capable of encashment bringing financial benefit to the accused. This is an erroneous impression. The Supreme Court in the case of Nrisingha Murari Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal : 1977CriLJ961 laid down that the word 'property' does not necessarily mean that the thing, of which delivery was dishonestly desired by the person who cheats, 'must have a money value or a market value, in the hand of the person cheated'. Even if the thing has no money value, in the hand of the person cheated, but becomes a thing of value, in the hand of the person, who may get possession of it, as a result of the cheating practised by him, it will still fall within the connotation of the term 'property' in Section 420. In that case the Supreme Court looking to the importance and characteristics of a passport held that it was the property of the State so long as it was with the passport issuing authority and had not been issued to the person concerned and, after issue, it becomes the property of the person to whom it had been granted. Applying the principles laid down in the decided case to the present case, it has been found by the Courts below and as held by me earlier, rightly, that the bill in question was presented before the Authorities of the Hindusthan Steel Limited by the accused with the endorsements purportedly of the persons who were in charge of passing the bill. The only thing that remained was that endorsement for payment was to be made in the Accounts Section. It was therefore a valuable document which purported to show that the materials for which the money was claimed had been supplied to the Company and the persons submitting the bill were entitled to receive the amount claimed therein. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the bill was not 'property' attracting the provisions of Section 420, I.P.C. As such, the Court below rightly negatived the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case the charge under Sections 420/511, I.P.C. was not established since the bill in question was not 'property'.
10. Another submission which was raised before the appellate court and was reiterated before me was that the action taken by the accused as found by the Court below can at best amount to preparation for commission of offence of cheating, but not attempt to commit the offences. The Court below on consideration of the facts of the case and relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal : 1973CriLJ1798 and in the case of Abhayananda Misra v. State of Bihar : 1961CriLJ822 held that the actions taken by the petitioner had passed the stage of preparation and had reached the stage of commission of the offence. On careful consideration, I am in agreement with the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Court. In the former decision the Supreme Court considered the question, where signing the chalan without actually receiving the goods on the part of the accused is established, can it be said that there was only preparation and not an attempt at cheating because the subsequent stage of affixing a stamp to the chalan and again signing of it by the accused had not been completed? The Court observed that a person commits the offence of 'attempt to commit a particular offence', when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence, and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission. Such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence. The Court held in the decided case that quite a good amount of money was due to the supplier from the Company. The challan had been prepared and the initials of the concerned clerk were obtained by the accused. That was a definite step towards the commission of the offence of cheating though the penultimate step of affixing the stamp and signing by the accused in order to enable the supplier to receive the payment was not completed. The acts of the accused did not stop at the stage of preparation, but had reached the stage of attempt. In my view, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In this case too the accused not only forged the endorsements of the persons in charge of passing the bill, but also presented the document before the official of the Accounts Section for taking action to pay the amount Thus the acts of the accused had clearly reached the stage of attempt to commit the offence of cheating.
11. The last submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that remains to be considered is applicability of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the case. The Appellate Court did not accept the contention in view of the exception to the applicability of the Section as provided therein. Of the charges established against the accused those under Sections 467 and 471, I.P.C. provide for maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has no application to the case and the contention was rightly repelled by the Court below.
12. On the analysis in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons stated the rein, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.