9.The evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 clearly shows that the petitioner was instrumental in preparing the forged and fabricated documents. Their evidence is further collaborated by the expert opinion marked as Ex.P-25 through PW-12. The evidence of PW-12 and his report clearly shows that he has compared the disputed documents which are S-11 to S-22, S-39 to S-62, S-99 to S-101, along with the sample signature of the petitioner Ex.P-23 and also the sample signatures of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 and found that all the disputed documents contains the hand writing of the petitioner herein. This overwhelming evidence clearly points out that it is only the petitioner who has forged and fabricated documents and thereby has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant, using as genuine a forged document, and falsification of a valuable security. The case attempted to be projected on the side of the accused person as if PW-2 came in person and obtained the loan and repaid it back through one Jayavel who is none other than a servant working in the shop of the petitioner's father, does not in any way inspire the confidence of this Court. The entire case is borne out by the records and records speaks for itself along with the report of the
