( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and exports, Hyderabad being aggrieved by the judgment and Order of acquittal of the sole respondent for the offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code and also under Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order dated 13th July, 1994 passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, hyderabad in C. C. No. 59/88 is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused supported the judgment.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to summarise the facts of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that one M/s. Anand Sheet Metal works situate at Adilalabd was under the management of the accused and he had produced the necessary records in order to get the import licence for the purpose of running the unit. After obtaining the import permit the accused imported certain materials which were not used for the unit and it has been accordingly mis-used. It is further stated that the said import licence was got renewed, and in a raid conducted at the residence of one Fakruddin the original licence, issued to this M/s. Anand Sheet Metal Works was found, raising some suspicion in the matter. Accordingly it was investigated into by the c. B. I. , and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for different offences as stated above. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW17 and got marked number of documents as Exs. P1l to P69. There was a total denial on the part of the accused and the accused got marked Ex. D1 and no witness was examined. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure code in which also he denied the prosecution case. On the appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Court below acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. It is in those circumstances, the present appeal is preferred by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that on the basis of the evidence on record, it is established that the accused by name B. Mallesham has obtained import licence in the name of the company i. e. , M/s. Anand Sheet Metal Works for the purpose of utilisation of material imported by filing applications first for the purpose of registering the Company under Small Scale industries and later for importing certain materials to the Company. He further submitted that though there is no direct evidence, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to the effect that the accused, by styling himself as one Mr. Anand, filed application on behalf of M/s. Anand Sheet metal Works and obtained necessary licence under the Small Scale Industries Scheme and also licence for importing certain materials and accordingly such materials were imported but were mis-used by him. He submitted that the Court below was in error in holding that the prosecution has not proved that it is the accused who had styled himself as Anand and obtained the said licences and accordingly mis-appropriated the material. In view of the evidence of PW17 the hand-writing expert, and the evidence of PW20, who collected the specimen signatures of the accused, he rurther elaborated that, if the specimen signatures found in Ex. P55 collected during the investigation are compared with the signatures found in Exs. P35, P42, P43, P25 and P13 etc. , it would be established that it is the accused who filed an application before competent authority for issuing import licence. Therefore, the Court below was in error in holding that the identity of the accused has not been established. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the accused contended that the evidence of PW17, the handwriting expert, is not safe to rely upon and according to the judgme