1. We think it must be taken as satisfactorily established that the receipt forwarded by the appellant to his official superiors, and now upon the record, was the receipt for Rs. 8 originally given him by Kishen Lal, and that it had been altered in the manner sworn to by that person. There is, however, no proper evidence against the appellant of forgery, and the charge made against him would more properly have been framed under Section 471 of the Penal Code. It is in this aspect that we think the case against him should be regarded, and the question for determination in his appeal therefore is, did the appellant use the receipt as a genuine document, knowing or having reason to believe it had been altered, with intent to defraud, or to cause wrongful gain to himself, or wrongful loss to Debi Lal? That is to say, is the intent required by the law made out in fact? It must be observed that the alteration in the receipt, which is in Mahajani character, is made very clumsily by the interpolation of a Hindi figure, and it could hardly be expected to escape any but the most cursory inspection. It seems scarcely credible the appellant could ever had contemplated that it would pass muster in any Court, or prove of any practical use except to save his pay from being cut. It is obvious that this was the immediate object and purpose he had in view in using it, and that the actual intent he had in his mind at the time was to deceive the police authorities and lead them to refuse to accede to the petition put in by Debi Lal. But it must be borne in mind that they had no legal right or authority to stop any portion of the appellant's salary except upon a proper attachment by a Civil Court; and therefore it comes to this, that the appellant used the altered receipt in order to induce his superior officer to refrain from doing an illegal act. This, to our minds, was the real intent in the mind of the prisoner, and we do not think that in a criminal case we ought to speculate as to some other intent over and above this that might have presented itself to him. For it does not, in our opinion, at all necessarily follow that, because the appellant objected to have his pay put under monthly stoppages to satisfy his creditor's debt, that he therefore necessarily contemplated setting up the altered receipt to defeat his creditor's claim. In this view of the matter we think there was a doubt in the case to which the appellant was entitled, and under these circumstances his appeal must be allowed, and the conviction and sentence being set aside, he will stand acquitted, with the result that he may be discharged.