Page No.# 1/13 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 9581 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/13 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 December, 2025

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010011482013




                                                                              2025:GAU-AS:17378

                                THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.A./297/2013

            MAKIBAR RAHMAN @ MUKIBUR RAHMAN,
            S/O LATE MOSEB ALI, R/O SHANTIPUKHURI, MOUZA KHOIRABARI,
            UNDER PATHARGHAT POLICE STATION, IN THE DIST. OF DARRANG,
            ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION




Advocate for the Petitioner     : MR.P KATAKI, MS.R BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, MR.P N CHOUDHURY

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

For the Appellant : Mr. P Kataki

For the Respondent : Ms. M Kumari

Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Page No.# 2/13

Date of Judgment : 16.12.2025

Judgment and Order (CAV)

Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Kumari, learned Standing counsel, CBI .

2. The challenge in the present criminal appeal is to the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 11/2005, convicting the appellant, herein, under Sections 419/420 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years for the offence under Section 419 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo 1 (one) year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The CBI authorities had submitted a charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 5/2004, dated 07.01.2004, following investigations made in two cases, i.e., R.C. No. 5/E/2001-Cal and No.6/E/2001-Cal, which were registered by the CBI authorities on transfer to it of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 199/1998 and No. 202/1998, respectively, to it. The two cases, being Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 199/1998 and No. 202/1998 were registered basing on two FIRs lodged on 06.04.1998 by Sh. N.N. Barkakaty, the then Chief Executive Director, Assam State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank (ASCARD) Limited, Guwahati.

The prosecution case in brief is that a loan was sanctioned to one Samser Ali by the ASCARD Bank for purchasing a vehicle and for the purpose, an amount of Rs.4,08,220/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred Twenty) was sanctioned Page No.# 3/13

and paid through cheque No. 181981 on 26.02.1996. It was alleged that Mukibur Rahman, the peon of the said bank, who was attached to Imran Shah, also an accused, had signed as Md. Samser Ali in the loan application, demand promissory note, etc. and had also opened an SB Account opening form of the account No. 5855, in the name of Samser Ali.

The CBI authorities on conclusion of the investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused, Imran Shah and the appellant, herein, under Sections 120B/420 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and a handwriting expert and defence side examined 2 witnesses.

On conclusion of the trial, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Basing on the evidences coming on record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit Imran Shah from the charge framed against him in the case and basing on the evidences coming on record, more particularly, the evidence of the Handwriting Expert proceeded to convict the appellant, herein under Sections 419/420 IPC and also under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced him, as noticed hereinabove.

4. Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court through the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter has contended that the conviction of the appellant, herein, is primarily based on the evidences adduced by the Forensic Expert as PW19. He submits that the said evidence adduced by PW19 is merely an opinion and the same was not corroborated by the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses.

Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce any substantive evidence against the appellant and that the learned Trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the accused person relying solely on the opinion of the Handwriting Expert (PW19). The learned counsel further Page No.# 4/13

submitted that the witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, stated nothing against the appellant and as such, in the absence of any substantive direct or circumstantial evidence, the learned Trial Judge committed gross illegality by recording the conviction on the basis of the opinion evidence of a Handwriting Expert. In support of his contention, the learned counsel, for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sashi Kr. Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Subodh Kr. Banerjee , reported in AIR 1964 SC 529, as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Hiteshwar Borah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ,reported in 2010 (4) GLT 517.

5. Per contra, Ms. M Kumari, learned Retainer counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that the evidences adduced by the Handwriting Expert as PW19 would reveal that the questioned documents, which included the cheques as well as the Account Opening Form were written by the appellant, herein. She submits that the learned Trial Court had considered the matter in its proper perspective and had relied on the evidence adduced by the PW19 to come to the conclusion that it was the appellant, herein, who had submitted the loan application in the matter and also issued the cheques after the amount was sanctioned and deposited in the account opened in the name of Samser Ali. She submits that it was established beyond reasonable doubt from the unshaken evidence of the Handwriting Expert that it was the appellant, herein, who had signed the cheque as well as the application form and the account opening form in the name of Samser Ali. She submits that the offence charged against the appellant, herein, under Sections 419/420 IPC and under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. having been established beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court having imposed the minimum penalty upon the appellant. herein, no interference of the same would be called upon to be made by this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. For the purpose of appreciating the evidences coming on record, this Court deems it proper to briefly reproduce the evidences coming on record as follows:-

Page No.# 5/13

PW1, Ilias Ali in his evidence had deposed that he had become an introducer of one Samser Ali and had signed on the account opening form for opening an account with the Co-operative City Bank Limited, Guwahati in the name of Samser Ali on the request of the accused Imran Shah. He further deposed that he had put his signature in the account opening form (which was exhibited as Ext. 1), in the absence of Samser Ali and Samser Ali had not put his signature in the account opening form in his presence.

PW2 Harendra Nath Das had deposed that the accused Imran Shah was the Ex- Officio Director/Advisor and the appellant, herein, was a sub-staff of ASCARD Bank. He further deposed that a loan application in the name of Samser Ali for an amount of Rs.7,42,000/- was processed in the loan file which was exhibited as Ext. 2. He deposed that there were several irregularities in granting of the aforesaid loan in the name of Samser Ali and the loan application file was incomplete. He further deposed that the loan was sanctioned by the Advisor of the ASCARD Bank, i.e., the accused, Imran Shah. He also deposed that there was no hypothecation of the vehicle involved in the said loan and no Jamabandi or fixed deposit certificate was furnished against the said loan.

PW2 had also deposed that as per procedure, three quotations were required to be submitted but in the case, three quotations were not given and the loanee had paid only two installments.

PW3 Shishuram Gayan had proved in original the S/B Account Opening Form in the name of Samser Ali, bearing account No. 5855, which was exhibited as Ext. 3. He further exhibited the cheques of Co-operative Bank of different dates and denominations issued by Samser Ali from the said account as Ext. 6 to 16. He further exhibited different cheques as well as credit vouchers and pay-in-slips, maintained by Samser Ali in Co- operative City Bank, Silphukhuri Branch.

PW 4 Hassan Ali had deposed that the appellant, herein, was working as a Peon in the head office of ASCARD Bank and he was attached with Imran Shah. PW4 further deposed that the cheque bearing No.181981 dated 23.02.1996 (Ext. 29) for an amount of Page No.# 6/13

Rs.4,08,220/- was issued in favour of Samser Ali and the cheque was issued by the Manager (Finance) and the then Chief Executive Director.

PW5 Binode Talukdar had deposed that in the year 2001, CBI personnel had come to the Head office of ASCARD Bank and had taken specimen signatures/handwritings of the appellant, herein, in his presence and in presence of one Prafulla Patowary. He deposed that the appellant had written in the specimen sheets as Samser Ali. The specimen signatures drawn were identified and exhibited by PW5.

PW6 Hirendra Nath Deka had exhibited a cheque as Exb.29 of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank limited. He submitted that ASCARD Bank maintained one account in the said bank. He submitted that the cheque, being Ext. 29 for Rs.4,08,220/- was sent to their bank through Co-operative City Bank and the amount was cleared.

PW7 Bhupen Talukdar had deposed that the account opening form Ext. 3 in respect of S/B Account No. 5855 was in the name of Samser Ali. He also exhibited specimen signature card of Samser Ali as Ext. 4. PW7 furhter exhibited the statement of account in respect of S/B Account No. 5855 as Ext. 18.

PW8 Nitya Nanda Borkakotyi had deposed that he lodged two FIRs (The FIRs were proved in original). The FIRs were deposed to have been lodged against Pahar Khan with Paltanbazar Police Station and accordingly, a case was registered in the said police station vide Paltan Bazar P.S. 199/1998 dated 12.04.1998. He further deposed that he had lodged a further FIR against Khireswar Saikia and a case was registered at Paltan Bazar Police Station, being Paltan Bazar P.S. 202/1998.

PW9 Ananda Bhuban Das had deposed that after carefully going through the materials placed before him by the CBI, including the statement of the witnesses, documents and applying his mind with regard to the allegations and the supporting materials, he had accorded prosecution sanction against the appellant, herein.

PW10 Prafulla Patowary had deposed with regard to the obtaining of specimen Page No.# 7/13

signatures of the appellant, herein, in his presence and he also deposed to have signed in the sheet, wherein, the specimen signatures were obtained as a witness.

PW11 Ashit Ranjan Sarkar in his evidence had deposed about the procedure followed for the purpose of sanctioning loan in various branches of the ASCARD Bank. He deposed that the various branches of ASCARD Bank used to process the loan file and send the same to the Head Office for approval and sanction. He deposed that as per the practice in vogue at the relevant point of time, the Advisor of the bank used to approve the loan and on his approval, the loans were sanctioned. He deposed that at the relevant point of time, the Advisor was the accused Imran Shah.

PW11 had further deposed that Samser Ali was the applicant involved in the loan file (Ext. 2) under the scheme SRTO. He further deposed that the file was put up by Imran shah for approval of loan on 18.02.1996 and the Chairperson had approved the same on 19.02.1996. He also deposed that the loan amount sanctioned was Rs.5,08,370/- and the purpose was for purchase of a Tata Diesel truck.

PW11 had further deposed that the loan application of Samser Ali was not properly completed. No hypothecation deed was maintained in loan file. He further deposed that at the time of sanctioning the loan, the Director had imposed a condition for deposit of Rs.100/- per day. However, the records do not indicate any daily deposit account of Rs.100/-, being opened in the name of the applicant. PW11 had further deposed that although a loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs. 5,08,370/-, but the sanctioned order was issued for an amount of Rs.7,42,000/- by Khireswar Saikia, the then Chief Executive Director in concurrence with the General Manager, Pahar Khan. PW11 also deposed that the appellant, herein, was working as a Peon in the house of the Advisor, Imran Shah and the appellant used to do all the works as allotted to him by the said Advisor.

PW12 Abdul Ali Ahmed had deposed that the appellant, herein, was the peon of ASCARD Bank and during the relevant period of time, he mostly worked in the house of Imran Shah.

Page No.# 8/13

PW13 is the another witness to the specimen signatures of the appellant obtained by the CBI.

PW14 Joy Ram Das had deposed that he had investigated the case to certain extent and had seized certain documents and examined few witnesses. He further deposed that as the case was transferred to CBI, he had handed over the case diary to Sh. P.S. Bose, Inspector of CBI.

PW15 is another witness to the specimen signatures and writings obtained of the appellant by the CBI authorities.

PW16 Parimal Choudhury had exhibited the FIRs filed in the case against Pahar Khan and Khireswar Saikia.

PW17 Md. Liakat Hussain had deposed that any person desiring to obtain loan from ASCARD Bank has to be a member of the bank and he must be a share holder of the bank. He further deposed that to secure any kind of loan, the applicant is required to submit documents relating to immovable property, i.e., landed property. He further deposed with regard to the manner in which the loan application of Samser Ali was processed. He also deposed that the loan application of Samser Ali did not contain any document with regard to landed property.

PW17 also exhibited the personal file of the appellant, Mukibur Rahman, who had joined ASCARD Bank on 09.06.1992 and was attached with the accused Imran Shah, w.e.f. 1992 up to May, 1995.

PW18 Upendra Nath Goswami deposed that in Page No. 7 of the loan application, there is a signature of Samser Ali and the said signature appears to be the same with the writings of Muakibur Rahman. He also deposed that the CBI authorities had drawn the specimen signatures of the appellant, herein, in his presence and he had signed thereon as a witness.

PW19 Narendra Kumar had deposed that he was working in the capacity of Deputy Page No.# 9/13

GEQD, when he had examined the questioned documents and specimen writings sent by SP, CBI, Kolkata, vide letter dated 20.06.2001. He deposed that the questioned documents specimen writings of the appellant marked as S-38 to S-53 were received in the office of the GEQD and he compared those specimen with the questioned documents marked as Q. 139, Q.139/1, Q.139/2, Q.140 to Q.142, Q.203 and Q.204. He deposed that on such comparison, he gave the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamp and marked as S-39 to S-53 had also written the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked as Q. 139, Q.139/1, Q.139/2, Q.140 to Q.142, Q.203 and Q.204.

PW19 had proved his opinion dated 31.12.2001 and the same was exhibited as Ext. 179. PW19, thereafter, deposed that some further documents containing specimen writings as well as questioned documents were received in the office of the GEQD which also contains specimen writings of the appellant, herein, marked as S-38 to S-53 along with the questioned documents. PW19 deposed that on comparing the specimen writings and the questioned documents, the same were found to have been written by the same person.

PW20 Partha Sarathi Bose, the Investigating Officer deposed that he had seized documents and recorded statements of the witnesses. He also deposed to have obtained the specimen signatures of the appellant. He deposed that he obtained the specimen signatures and writings of the appellant and had forwarded them to the GEQD for opinion. He deposed that he had investigated the case up to May, 2003 and thereafter, handed over the investigation of the case to Sri S. Roy, Inspector, CBI.

PW21 Sh, S. Roy deposed that the case was entrusted to him on 30.06.2003 for investigation. He deposed of having carried out further investigation and on finding sufficient materials, he submitted charge-sheet in the case against the appellant and accused Imran Shah.

PW21 also deposed about the materials coming on record during the investigation.

Page No.# 10/13

He deposed that after the loan amount was sanctioned, the same was withdrawn through cheque issued under the signature of Samser Ali, which was done by the appellant and the same was confirmed by the GEQD.

PW21 further deposed that during investigation no evidence was found of any cheque or pay orders or DDs being issued in the name of any car dealer for purchase of the car.

Upon closure of the PWs evidence, the defence adduced evidence of one Kabiruddin Ahmed as DW1. He deposed that one Samsul Ali, younger brother of Minara Begum had brought one recovery notice of loan taken by late Samser Ali, husband of Minara Begum. He deposed that the said notice was issued by the Executive Director, ASCARD Bank regarding Bakijai proceedings against Samser Ali for recovery of the loan amount. He submitted a reply to the said recovery notice, which was received in the bank on 06.11.2012.

The defence also adduced the evidence of one Baharul Islam, as DW2, who deposed that he knew Samser Ali as a contractor. He deposed that he had come into contact with Samser Ali about 20 years back. He further deposed that Samser Ali had informed him that a loan was sanctioned to him by ASCARD Bank for an amount of Rs.7,42,000/- and had also shown him the letter of intimation dated 20.01.1996 issued by the Chief Executive Director of ASCARD Bank. He further deposed that of having been informed by Samser Ali that he had not got the full amount and had only received Rs.5,03,000/- and accordingly, could not purchase any truck.

The DW2 further deposed that Samser Ali received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. issued under the signature of Partha Sarathi Bose, Inspector, CBI, asking him to appear before him on 15.01.2002 at Camp Office Hotel Prag, Guwahati and on the said date, he deposed that Samser Ali had appeared before Partha Sarathi Ghose and had told him that due to shortage of time, he was unable to produce the called for documents. He further deposed that on being authorized by Samser Ali, he had gone to Kolkata on Page No.# 11/13

07.02.2002 and met Mr. Bose at the CBI Office and submitted all documents which were handed over to him by Shamser Ali. DW 2 exhibited the death certificate of Shamser Ali as Ext. F and deposed that Samser Ali expired on 01.02.2009 at GMC Hospital. DW2 further deposed that Samser Ali had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 04.12.2019, whereby a Bakijai case, being No. 209/92 was initiated against him. He deposed that the said writ petition, on being dismissed, Samser Ali had assailed the same before the Division Bench by way of filing a writ appeal, which was also dismissed.

8. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it appears that none of the above mentioned witnesses supported the prosecution story that the appellant, herein, by impersonating as Shamser Ali had submitted the loan application, opened an account in the name of Samser Ali and had issued cheques in the matter. The learned Trial Court had also drawn a conclusion that there was no direct evidence available to show that the appellant, herein, impersonating as Samser Ali had obtained the loan from ASCARD Bank for purchasing Tata Diesel Vehicle. It was further concluded that no other independent witnesses had deposed anything to the effect that the appellant, herein, had signed the loan application for the purpose of loan and he availed the loan in the name of Samser Ali and used the loan without purchasing any vehicle.

9. This Court also finds that there is no iota of direct or substantial evidence against the appellant, herein.

10. The questioned documents containing the signature of Samser Ali and the specimen signature of the appellant were sent to the examiner of questioned documents.

11. Pw19 who was the examiner of questioned documents, GEQD had deposed that after examining the handwritings available in the questioned documents as well as in the specimen of the signatures/writings, he found that all the said documents were written by one and the same person. In the opinion of the said Handwriting expert, the appellant, who gave the specimen signatures were the makers of the questioned documents. It is on Page No.# 12/13

the basis of the evidence adduced by PW19, i.e., the Handwriting Expert that the learned Trial Court concluded that the appellant, herein, had committed the alleged forgery and misappropriation of funds.

12. As noticed hereinabove, except the opinion evidence of the said Handwriting Expert, there is no direct or substantial evidence against the appellant in support of the prosecution version that he had committed forgery and misappropriated funds.

13. In the case of Sashi Kr. Banerjee (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while discussing the evidential value of the handwriting expert observed as follows:

"Besides it is necessary to observe that expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by substantial evidence."

14. This Court having also found that the learned Trail Court had also not found the evidence of PW19 corroborated by the evidence of any prosecution witness, there being no dispute that the evidence of an expert is nothing but an opinion formed on the basis of certain established principles, such opinion cannot be a substitute for substantial evidence and as such, for want of corroboration from independent evidence, no conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused could have drawn by the learned Trial Court.

15. It is settled law that in criminal trial the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the allegations brought against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, in the absence of any direct or substantial evidence against the appellant, the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be the basis for holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences. In the light of the above discussed evidence, it appears that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed an error by recording the conviction solely relying on the opinion of the handwriting expert. In the light of the above discussion, I find sufficient Page No.# 13/13

merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2013.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 11/2005 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set liberty forthwith. The bail bond stands discharged.

17. Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court forthwith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant