CrimitIal Appeal No 22 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 12th September 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No 314 of 1973
RL Kohli for the appellant
OP Sharma for respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
We made an order on 28th January 1977 immediately after the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal and by that order we allowed the appeal and set a side the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant
We now proceed to give our reasons for making that order
The appellant was tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ludhiana for offences under sections 468 411 and 420 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code
He carried an appeal to the Sessions Court but the appeal was unsuccessful
A further revision application followed but that too was rejected by the High Court
Hence the present appeal by special leave 1009 The facts giving rise to the prosecution are set out in great detail in the judgment of the High Court and hence it is not necessary to reiterate them
It is enough to state that 354 black iron sheets worth Rs 1770191 were des patched by Hindustan Steel Plant from Munda near Bhilai to Ms Shiv Rattan Mohatta at Bikaner in Wagon No SEKC 4075
The Railway Receipt in respect of this consignment was sent to Ms Shiv Rattan Mohatta through the State Bank of Bikaner and Ms Shiv Rattan Mohatta took delivery of the Railway Receipt against payment to the Bank
The consignment however did not reach Bikaner and on enquiries being made it was found by the Railway authorities that the wagon containing the goods had reached Agra en route Bikaner but at some point of time before it reached Agra the labels attached to the wagon were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tempered with and Changed to exhibit LAR indicating that the wagon was des patched from Lalitpur and its destination was Ludhiana
The result was that wagon instead of going to Bikaner was carried to Ludhiana and it reached there on 1st August 1964
The prosecution case was that round about this time one person
styling himself as
Umedi Lal resident of Agra approached a firm called Ms Jindal Khemka  Co which was carrying on business as dealers in iron sheets in Ludhi ana
Umedi Lal produced a Railway Receipt exhibit PW 10A before Joginder Lal and Ram Nath partners of this firm and offered to sell the goods covered by this Railway Receipt to Ms Jindal Khemka  Co This Railway Receipt was a forged document written out on a blank form stolen from the Railway Receipt Book maintained at a railway station called Banmore
Joginder Lal went to Ludhiana Railway Station with this Railway Receipt on 2nd August 1964 for taking delivery of the goods and presented the Railway Receipt to Teja Singh Sodhi who was the Goods Clerk on duty at the goods sheet
Teja Singh entertained some doubt about the genuineness of the Railway Receipt and he told Joginder Lal that the Rail way Receipt appeared to be defective
In view of this Joginder Lal according to the prosecution returned the Railway Receipt to Umedi Lal on the following day when he came to enquire about the receipt of the goods
Umedi Lal then went to the railway station accompanied by one Shoja Ram who was a Washing Soap dealer in Ludhiana and present ed the Railway Receipt to Teja Singh Sodhi for taking deliv ery of the goods
Curiously enough though only a day before Teja Singh Sodhi had entertained doubt about the genuineness
of the Railway Receipt his doubts suddenly seemed to have vanished and he delivered the consignment of 354 black iron sheets which had come in wagon No SEKG 40765 to Umedi Lal
It does not appear from the record us to where this consignment of 354 black iron sheets was kept by Umedi Lal but out of it 200250 iron sheets Were taken to the premises of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co for sale On commis sion basis
Joginder Lal and Ram Nath were however ac cording to the prosecution advised by some broker that since iron sheets were controlled items they should insist on production of a bill showing purchase of these iron sheets by Umedi LaI Joginder Lal and Ram Nath according asked Umedi Lal to produce 1010 the bill in connection with the purchase of these iron sheets but Umedi Lal pleaded his inability to do so on the ground that these iron sheets represented surplus goods remaining after execution of a works contract by his firm of Ms Bansidhar  Sons of Lalitpur
When this talk took place between Joginder Lal and Ram Nath on the one hand and Umedi Lal on the other Umedi Lal was according to the prosecu tion accompanied by the appellant who was at the material time employed as a Guard in the Northern Railway
Since Joginder Lal and Ram Nath refused to purchase the iron sheets Umedi Lal removed the same in three carts and passed a receipt in respect of the same in favour of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co The prosecution case was that at this time also Umedi Lal was accOmpanied by three or four persons who included the appellant
It appears that since Ms Shiv Rattan Mohatta did not re ceive delivery of the iron sheets consigned to them in Wagon No SEKC 40765 they lodged a claim with the Railway Admin istration and this led to enquiries being made by the Rail way Administration
Ultimately the Railway Administration filed a first information report with the Special Police Establishment Ambala Branch and following upon the first information report the police started investigation
During the course of investigation the police entertained suspicion against the appellant and they obtained from the appellant specimen handwritings PW 2737 to PW 2757 for the purpose of comparing them with the handwriting on the Rail way Receipt exhibit PU 10A which was a forged document
The Police also requested the Railway authorities to direct the appellant and one Ameeruddin who was also an employee of the Railway Administration to subject themselves to test identification parade at the hands of the Special Railway Magistrate Patiala
The appellant and Ameeruddin accord ingly went to Patiala and they were taken to the Central Jail and there a test identification parade was held at which Joginder Lal failed to identify the appellant but Ram Nath after some hesitation managed to identify him
The specimen handwritings of the appellant Exs
PW 27 37 to PW 2757 were sent along with the Railway Receipt exhibit PW 10 A to B Lal Government Examiner of Questioned Docu ments and B Lal gave his opinion that the writing marked at A1 on the Railway Receipt exhibit PW 10A and the specimen handwritings PW 2737 to 2757 were all by One and the same person
The appellant was on the basis of this material put up for trial before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ludhiana
The learned Magistrate convicted the appellant and his conviction was maintained in appeal as well as revision
The question is whether the material on record was sufficient to justify the conviction of the appellant
We have carefully gone through the evidence but we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant
The only two pieces of evidence against the appellant are the evidence of B Lal the handwriting expert who identi fied the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt exhibit PW 10A as that of the same person who wrote the specimen signatures Exs
PW 2737 to PW 2757 and the evidence show ing the presence of the appellant with Umedi Lal at Ludhiana when the talk took place between Umedi Lal on the one 1011 hand and Joginder Lal and Ram Nath on the other in connec tion with the sale of the iron sheets
We do not think that these two pieces of evidence are at all satisfactory and in any event on conviction can be rounded on them
In the first place it may be noted that the appellant was at the material time a Guard in the employment of the Rail way Administration with his Headquarters at Agra and he had nothing to do with the train by which Wagon No SEKG 40765 was despatched from Munda to Bikaner nor with the train which carried that wagon from Agra to Ludhiana
He was not a Guard on either of these two trains
There was also no evidence to connect the appellant with the theft of the blank Railway Receipt at Banmore Station
It is indeed difficult to see how the appellant who was a small employee in the Railway Administration could have possibly come into possession of the blank Railway Receipt from Banmore Station which was not within his jurisdiction at any time
It is true that B Lal the handwriting expert deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt exhibit PW 10A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwrit ings exhibit 2737 to 2757 that is the appellant but we think it would be extremely hazardous to candemn the appel lant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a hand writing expert
It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert
There is a profusion of precendential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration
This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law
It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra vs State1 that it is unsafe to treat expert hand writing opinion as sufficient basis for conviction but it may be relied upon when supported by other items o internal and external evidence
This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad vs Md Isa2 that expert evidence of hand writing can never be conclusive because it is after all opinion evidence and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar vs Subodh Kumar 3 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert s evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely if ever take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear_ direct evidence or by Circumstantial evidence
This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value o expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin vs State4 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evi dence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence
the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence direct or circumstantial
It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts
Vide Gurney vs Langlands5 and Matter of Alfred 1 AIR 1957 SC 381
2  3 AIR 1964 SC 529 4 AIR1967 SC 1326 5 1822 5B  Qld 330 1012 Fogter s Will1
The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one s opinion concerning the nice ties of penmanship Opinions are necessarily evil and may be valuable but at best this kind of evidence vii
We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence being opinion evidence is by its very nature weak and infirm and cannot of itself form and the basis for a conviction
We must therefore try to see whetherin the present case there is apart from the evi dence of the hand
writing expert B Lal any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence
The only other evidence which was sought to be relied upon on behalf of the prosecution was that showing the presence of the appellant with Umedi Lal at Ludhiana when there was talk between Umedi Lal on the one hand and Jogind er Lal and Ram Nath on the other in regard to the sale of the iron sheets
But this evidence is wholly unsatisfactory and does not inspire any confidence at all
In the first place it is difficult to see why the appellant should have one with Umedi Lal to Ludhiana for the purpose of selling the iron sheets
The appellant was a mere railway Guard and even if it be assumed for the purpose of argument that his service were utilised for the purpose of forging the railway receipt exhibit PW 10A there is no reason why he should have been persuaded to accompany Umedi Lal to Ludhiana
It is true that the appellant was on leave from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964 but from that circumstance it does not follow that he had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of the iron sheets
Even according to the prosecution the appellant was in Ludhiana only on 6th August 1964 and that would not necessitate the appellant taking such a long leave from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964
The leave taken by the appellant from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964would not necessarily support the inference that the appellant was present in Ludhiana on 6th August 1964
The appellant might have taken this long leave for some other purpose
Moreover it may be noted that Joginder Lal could not identify the appel lant at the rest identification parade held at the Central Jail PatiaIa
Ram Nath of course did identify the appel lant but that was after some hesitation The Special Rail way Magistrate PW 39 stated in cross examination that Ram Nath took some time in identifying the appellant
The appellant in fact raised an objection before the Special Railway Magistrate prior to the test identification parade that he had a doubt that he had been shown to the witnesses by the police
The identification made by Ram Nath at the test identification parade can therefore
inspire any confi dence in the mind of the Court
Moreover it is diffi cult to imagine how Ram Nath who is supposed to have seen the appellant for the first time on 6th August 1964 on a stray occasion could identify him at a test identification parade held after about two and a half years on 25th Febru ary 1967
It not as if the appellant had any direct talk with Rain Nath on this 1013 solitary occasion
The appellant was supposed to have merely accompanied Umedi Lal along with one or two other persons and it is impossible to believe that Ram Nath could have remembered his fact after such a long period as two and a half years
We are not  at all satisfied that the appel lant was with Umedi Lal when the latter is supposed to have negotiated with Joginder Lal and Ram Nath in connection with the saIe of the iron sheets
It is indeed strange that the police could not trace Umedi Lal or even Bhoja Ram
Bhoja Ram according to the prosecution evidence was frequently going to the Railway Station for taking delivery of goods on behalf of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co and yet he could not be caught hold of by the police
That is indeed a sad commentary on the efficiency of the police
We fail to understand why the police did not try to find out what happened to the iron sheets where they went from the shop of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co If the prosecution story is true these iron sheets were removed by Umedi Lal from the shop of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co and they must have been removed by some cartmen
We find it difficult to believe that the police could not have pursued the matter and traced the iron sheets by making enquiries from the cartmen
It is also intriguing why the police did not try to find out the where
abouts of Bhoja Ram
SureIy he could not have disappeared into the thin air
It is not right for us to speculate but we cannot help feeling that Ms Jindal Khemka  Co were not absolutely innocent in so far as this transaction is concerned
Umedi Lal was a stranger to both Joginder Lal and Ram Nath and yet accord ing to the prosecution case Umedi Lal handed over the forged Rail
way Receipt PW 10A to Joginder Lal for the purpose of taking delivery of the goods without insisting on payment and even without settling the bargain
The Railway Receipt Ex PW 10A was found to be defective by Teja Singh Sodhi Goods Clerk on 2nd August 1964 and yet on the next day strangely enough he was for some inexplicable reason persuaded to accept the same Railway Receipt and deIivered the iron sheets against it at the instance of Bhoja Ram who was a person frequently acting on behalf of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co Then again Joginder Lal and Ram Nath are supposed to have returned the iron sheets to Umedi Lal because some broker told them that they should insist on the production of a bill of purchase by Umedi Lal which Umedi Lal was unable to do
This also appears to be a rather ngenuous story made up by Joginder Lal and Ram Nath for the ose of showing as if the iron sheets did not remain with them
indeed strange why they should have taken a receipt from Umedi 7hen the latter removed the goods from their shop
The iron belonged to Umedi Lal and if Umedi Lal took them back from der Lal and Ram Nath there was no reason why the latter d have insisted on taking a receipt from him
Presumably the t was fabricated for the purpose of support ing their case that id not keep the iron sheets with them because otherwise they have nO account for them
It does appear to us prima facie edi Lal was a fictitious person and the iron sheets were taken of by Ms Jindal Khemka  Co for themselves on the 1014 strength of the forged Railway Receipt PW 10A
But some how or the other due to police inaction they appear to have escaped and a small man like the appellant seems to have been made a scape goat
We are of the view that the prosecution has totally failed to bring some the charge against the appellant and hence our order dated 28th January 1977 setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appel lant and acquitting him of the offences charged against him
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
A certain consignment of iron sheets despatched by Ms Hindustan Steel Plant EXBNDM Banda Bunda near Bhilai to Bikaner in wagon No SEKG 4875 was carried to Ludhiana via
Agra because at some point of time before it reached Agra the labels attached to the wagons were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tampered with and changed to EXLAR to LDH indicating that the wagon was despatched from Lalitpur and its destina tion was Ludhiana
One Umedi Lal a resident of Agra approached a firm called Ms Jindal Khemka  Co represent ed by its partners Joginder Lal and Ram Nath with a forged railway receipt exhibit PW 10A written on a blank form stolen from the Railway Receipt Book maintained at Ban more Railway Station and offered to sell to them the iron sheets covered by the aforesaid consignment sent by Ms Hindustan Steel Co Ltd to Bikaner
Umedi Lal represented himself as the partner of Ms Bansi Dhar  Sons
 Lalitpur_ since the forged RR to self bore the name of the consignor as Ms Bansi Dhar  Sons Lalitpur
After negotiations when one of the partners Mr Joginder Lal presented the RR and claimed the goods a goods clerk on duty by name Teja Singh Sodhi entertained a doubt and returned the RR as defective
Thereafter Umedi Lal accompanied by one Bhoja Ram a wash ing soap dealer presented exhibit PW10A himself and obtained the delivery of the goods from the very same goods clerk Teja Singh who entertained the suspicion about the RR earlier
Joginder Lal later on refused to purchase the iron sheets being a controlled item in the absence of bill of purchase but however took a receipt exhibit PW45A from Umedi Lal to the effect that the latter has taken back the iron sheets brought by him to their godown
The appellant a guard working in the Northern Railway was stated to have accompa nied and been present on the day ie 6 8 1964 when Jogind er Lal asked Umedi Lal to produce the original purchase bill
On this basis coupled with the circumstances namely a his absence on leave from 1 8 1964 to 16 8 1964 b the tally of his handwriting given before the Police during the investigation with that of exhibit PW10A as opined by the handwritten expert and c his identification by Ram Nath one of the partners of Ms jindal Khemka  Co at the identification parade the appellant was put on trial for the offences under sections 109420 411468 471 but convicted for offences under sections 468 411 109420 IPC and sentenced to 2 years RI with a fine of Rs 1000 or in default to undergo further RI for six months under section 468 and to RI for one year each under section 411 and 109420 LPC the substantive sentences to run concurrently
The appeals before the Sessions Judge and the revision before the High Court were dismissed
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD 1 It is well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert
It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert s opinion without substantial corroboration
In the instant case it would be extremely hazrdous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting  expert
1011C D Ram Chandra vs State AIR 1957 SC 361 Ishwari Prasad vs Md Isa   Shashi Kumar vs subodh Kumar AIR 1964 SC 529 and Fakhruddin vs State AIR 1967 SC 1326 reiterated
1008 Curnev vs Langlande 1622 5 B  AId
330 Morllar of Alfred Foster s Will  quoted with approval
2 In the instant case the circumstance that the appellant was on leave from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964 does not lead to the inferences that he had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of iron sheets and that he was present in Ludhiana on 6th August 1964
The identification by Ram Nath after some hesitation the improbability of identifying after 212 years a person who is supposed to have merely accompanied another only once and the inability of Joginder Lal to identify him all these are circum stances which militate the prosecution theory of the appel lant s presence
No conviction can therefore be founded on such evidence
lO12D A 1013 A B 3 In the instant case the various facts namely inability of the Police to trace Umedi Lal or even Bhoja Ram who was frequently going to the Railway Station for taking delivery of goods on behalf of Ms Jindal Khemka  Co and apprehend them the passing on of the forged exhibit PW10A to joginder Lal by Umedi Lal a stranger without insisting on payment and even without settling the bargain the delivery of the goods the next day to Umedi La1 by Teja Singh who earlier suspected the genuineness of the RR when presented by Joginder Lalthe return of the iron sheets on the advice of some broker on the non production by Umedi Lal of a bill of purchase taking a receipt exhibit PW45A when Umedi Lal removed back his goods etc
prima facie indicate that Umedi Lal was a fictitious person and Ms Jindal Khemka  Co were not absolutely innocent in so far as this transaction was concerned
This iron sheets appeared to have been taken delivery of by
Ms Jindal Khamka  Co for themselves on the strength of the forged Railway Receipt No PWIOA
But some how or the other due to police inaction they appear to have escaped and a small man like the appellant seems to have been made a scape goat
The prosecution has totally failed to bring home the charge against the appellant
1013C H 1014 A B Their Lordships expressed their dissatisfaction in the way the case was investigated and observed that it was indeed a sad commentary on the efficiency of the Police 1013B C