IMPORTANT POINT
Expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with mere caution than the opinion of a Handwriting Expert.

JUDGMENT

Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal revolves round the questions (1) Whether the evidence of witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court without having identification test during investigation can be relied upon and (2) whether the opinion of Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert in respect of signature on the voucher-can form basis of conviction and sentence of the appellant Mohammad Isa.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 3.12.1979 passed by Sri Usha Kant Varma, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in Session Trial Not 273 of 1972 whereby he has convicted the appellant Mohammad Isa under section 419 I.P.C. and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420 I.P.C. to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, under- Section 467 to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 46g I.P.C. to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 471 I.P.C. to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, making all the sentences to run concurrently. In default of-payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly slated, are that one Hari Shanker Gupta, Head Cashier in the office of the Director of Industries, made available a blank voucher to Ali Raza, who made forged sentries therein except the signature of Ram Pratap Singh -Bhatia for Rs. 24,000/ purporting to have been issued by Sri C.R. Mirra, Director of H.B. Technological Institute, Kanpur and allegedly being passed by Sri Danish Ali Khan; Additional Treasury Officer, Kanpur. Mohammad Isa Khan forged the fictitious signature of Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia on Ext. 1 and presented it before V.C. Sarkar P.W. 2 on 29.3.1965, who at the relevant time was working as Clerk at the local Head Office of the State Bank of India, Kanpur, V.C. Sarkaf on comparison of the signatures of the Additional Treasury Officer on the voucher with the specimen signatures with the Bank, found the signatures on the voucher not tallying with those available with the Bank as specimen signalers. Consequently, he contacted the Officer In charge Sri K.I. Dixit, who advised the Clerk to return the voucher to the payee for getting the voucher signed again by the Additional Treasury Officer Sri Danish Ali Khan. Accordingly, the voucher was returned to the payee (the appellant). Ali Razaagain made forged signature of the Additional Treasury Officer on the voucher. Binda Prasad Khanna, Head Clerk of the same Branch of the Bank persuaded one Sohan Lat (P.W. 1) who was having a current account No. 9189 in the State Bank of India to identify the signature of Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia on the voucher. P.W. 2 at the persuasion of Sri Binda Prasad Khanna allegedly attested the signatures of the appellant as that of Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia on that voucher. At that time Gautam Prakash Saxena (P.W. 6), Cashier of Income Tax Department Kanpur, why also present in the Bank. The appellant again presented the voucher before V.C. Sarkar (P.W. 2) who saw the of - appended signature of the Additional Treasury Officer Sri qanish Ali Khan on the voucher and found the forged signal lire of Ram Pratap Singh Bhatia attested by Sohanlal disclosing his account number and the signature of Sohan Lal was attested by S.R. Singh, In-charge of Current Account of the State Bank. Sri V.C. Sarkar taking the voucher as genuine passed it for payment banded over token No: 880 to the appellant to receive the payment on the Counter. Ayodhya, Prasad P.W. 3, who was Cashier in the State Bank called the holder of Token No. 880 to receive payment. The appellant appeared and received the payment of Rs. 24,000/- from P.W. 3 Ayodhya Prasad. On 2.4.1965 it was detected that no such amount of Rs. 24,000/- was deposited by the - Director H.B.T.L Kanpur nor such refund order was passed by the Treasury and the seal as well as signature of the Additio