P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.

The appellant Muhammad Abdul Qayyum has been convicted under sections 380, 468 and 420 read with section 109 P. P. C. and sentenced to two years' R. I. under sections 380 and 468 P. P. C. and to one year's R. I. under section 420 read with section 109 P. P. C. by Syed A. M. Ghaznavi, Special Judge, Karachi. It appears that a registered letter No. R. Kinberley No. 1984 was received at Karachi on 30th September 1951. On that day sorting duty was being done by seven persons including the appellant. 30th September, however, was a Sunday and accordingly the registered letter was given to postman Ata Rasul for delivery to the addressee. The addressee could not be contacted on 1st. Next day i.e., on 2nd October the registered letter was delivered to Hashmatali servant of the addressee. When the addressee opened the envelope he found that 10 Postal Orders, which should have been in the registered letter, were missing. He gave information to the Post Office on telephone and followed it by a regular complaint. The prosecution case further is that the 10 Postal Orders said to have been contained in the registered letter were presented for encashment on 1st October 1951. There was a rush and the man who wanted to cash it could not do so. At that time that person was accompanied by Muhammad Abdul Qayyum. He was known to Shabbir Ahmad a clerk at the Saddar Post Office. He requested G. Subhani who was the clerk incharge of payment to accept the Postal Orders and make the payment. Subhani replied that he could do so only with permission of the Supervisor. The Supervisor directed Subhani to accept the Postal Orders and make payment. When Subhani got the Postal Orders he found that the addressee's address was not mentioned on the reverse of the Postal Orders. For this reason Subhani declined to make the payment. Next day, it is alleged, the same Postal Orders were presented by another unknown man but surprisingly enough at that time too the addressee's address was not to be found on the reverse. Subhani asked the person who had presented the Postal Orders to have address recorded on the reverse. The man took back the Postal Orders and subsequently returned with address on the Postal Orders. Payment was then made. The appellant was suspected and enquiry was held and ultimately he was challaned. In the meantime admitted signature of the appellant along with signatures made by the appellant before the Magistrate Mr. Owais were sent to the expert Mr. Khalil for report as to whether signatures marked 'A' and 'b' on the front and on the back of the Postal Orders were made by the same person who had signed the admitted leave applications of the appellant and the specimen signature made by the appellant. Mr. Khalil reported that the writer of these signatures was the same, namely, the appellant. The prosecution examined many witnesses including G. Subhani P.W. 2, Shabir Ahmad P. W. 3, Mr. Owais P. W. 4, Zdhurul Hasan P. W. 5, Muhammad Yaqub P. W. 6, Imtiaz Husain P. W. 7, Abid Husain P. W. 8 and Mr. Khalil Khan P. W. 9 the expert. The conviction of the appellant is based on the opinion of expert Muhammad Khalil Khan said to be corroborated by the circumstances that the appellant had appeared along with the person who presented the Postal Orders on the first day i.e., 1st October 1951. It is a matter of admission appellant did not accompany the person who presented the Postal Orders on 2nd October and got them cashed. Subhani says that the Postal Orders presented on 2nc October were the same that had been presented on 1st October 1951. He, however, admitted in cross-examination that he had not noted number of the Postal Orders, It was, therefore, mere impression of Subhani that the Postal Orders presented on 2nd October 1951 were the same that had been presented to him on 1st October. There is one circumstance which is rather peculiar. According to the statement of Subhani the Postal Orders presented on lst had no address of the addressee on the reverse and he had refused to accept them on that very ground. It passes understanding as to why Postal Orders would be presented next day without the address of the addressee. In this view it is not possible to place implicit reliance on the impression of Subhani that the Postal Orders presented on 2nd October were the same that had been presented on 1st October 1951. The circumstance of the appellant accompanying the person on 1st October along with the Postal Orders in question cannot be said to have been fully established. We are then left with the expert's opinion that the writer of signatures on the front as well as on 'the back of the Postal Orders was the appellant Mr. Muhammad Khalil Khan the expert admitted in cross-examination "I did not think it necessary to take photographs as the case is very simple." He further admitted that he did not think it necessary to determine the pen position of the writing. As already noted above the expert says that the signatures marked 'B' on the reverse of the Postal Orders are also of the appellant. But it appears from the cross-examination of Subhani that in the course of his statement before the Police he stated that the person who presented Postal Orders on 2nd had made the signature on the back of the Postal Orders at the Counter in his presence. That person was not the appellant. It may be that Subhani made a mistake as he now alleges. But it makes one cautious in placing reliance on the testimony of the expert. The question is whether it is safe to base conviction on uncorroborated opinion of an expert. The question came up for consideration before a Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Srikant v. King Emperor (2 All. L J 444). Mr. Justice Blair who delivered the judgment said "We need hardly point out that to base a conviction upon the opinion of an expert in hand-writing is, as a general rule, very unsafe. There may be cases in which the handwriting concerned is of such a peculiar character and discloses so many variations from the ordinary standard that the conclusion would be morally irresistible. Such cases are very rare." This opinion was followed by a Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kali Charan Mukerjee v. Emperor (9 Cr. L J 498). Similar question came up for consideration before a single Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising an eminent judge of that Court, namely, Justice Niamatullah. His Lordship observed "In general it cannot be the basis of conviction unless it is corroborated brother evidence." Similar view expressed by a Bench of Lahore High Court in the case of Prabh Dial v. Emperor (A I R 1932 Lah. 490). Their Lordships observed "But there is ample authority as, for instance, Ishar Das v. Emperor and Hari Singh v. Lachmi Devi that in such cases the opinion of an expert should not originally be accepted as conclusive to prove the facts deposed to by him, and a conviction for forgery cannot be sustained merely on the evidence of a hand-writing expert." I am in respectful agreement with the above observations. The opinion of an expert is admissible but it cannot be con sidered to be infallible. There must be some circumstance or evidence whereby to test the accuracy of the statement of an expert. In this case the appellant was a clerk. It would not have been impossible to get persons who were acquainted with the writing of the appellant. There is no evidence to the effect that the appellant came into possession of the registered letter at any stage. I am of opinion that it should not be safe to maintain the conviction based on the sole testimony of an expert. I accord accept the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. The bail bonds are cancelled. A. H. Appeal accepted.