Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Two short points fall for consideration in this Appeal. One is whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert and the other is whether a person who is charged of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and is subsequently acquitted of the charge under Section 7, can still be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the aforesaid Act.

3. The Appellant and one Kewal Kumar were convicted by the Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The co-accused Mahesh Kumar was, however, acquitted of all the charges.

4. According to the prosecution, on 23rd April, 2002, one Anil Kumar, son of Kewal Prakash Mehta, made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ambala, stating that he was running a dairy adjoining his house. On 19th April, 2002, Kewal Kumar