A retrial can only be ordered when the original trial has not been satisfactory for particular reasons, such as if evidence had been wrongly rejected or admitted, or the Court had refused to hear certain witnesses who should have been heard.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside a conviction and ordering a retrial.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was charged under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act, for contravention of para. 4 (1), West Bengal Cloth and Yarn Movement Control Order, 1947. He was found guilty by a learned Magistrate and was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. In default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment. Certain cloth which was the subject matter of the prosecution was ordered to be confiscated.

( 3 ) THE case for the prosecution was that the petitioner came to Bongaon which is near the frontier between India and Pakistan on 28-11-1947 bringing with him ten bales of new textiles goods which were loaded in a truck. On 29-11-1947 the petitioner went to the Bongaon Police Station and sought for permission to move the goods from India into Pakistan. The Police referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer who ordered the petitioner to be prosecuted as he had failed to produce any permit; or authority for the movement of the goods from India into Pakistan. The petitioner was then arrested and produced before a Magistrate on 30-11-1947. Before the Magistrate he produced a permit, Ex. 3 purporting to have been issued by the Directorate of Textiles and bearing the signature of one W. Bennet, Assistant Director (Movement ). According to the prosecution this permit had never been issued by the Directorate of Textiles. The defence case was that it was a genuine permit authorising the petitioner to move the property with a view to taking it to Pakistan. 3a. There can be no doubt that if this permit was a genuine permit no offence had been committed and further if there was any doubt about the genuineness of the permit the prosecution would have failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

( 4 ) THE prosecution called evidence with a view to showing that this permit was not signed by W. Bennet. Whether Mr. Bennet was available to disprove his own signature is not stated. Of course he may have left the country. The evidence called to prove that the signature was not genuine was that of Ananta Kumar Purkait, P. W. 5 who was a clerk in Mr. Bennet's office and claimed to know Mr. Bennet's signature. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the signature on Ex. 3 appeared to be like that of Mr. Bennet though he was not sure whether it was Mr. Bennet's signature. In cross-examination he stated that he was very familiar with Mr. Bennet's handwriting and that the signature on Ex. 3 appeared to be similar to that of Mr. Bennet. Later he said that he had no doubt in his mind that the signature on Ex. 3 was the signature of Mr. Bennet. I the evidence be true then the prosecution was bound to fail. The prosecution, however, tried to suggest that their own evidence should be disbelieved and they called a handwriting expert. According to that witness the signature purporting to be that of Mr. Bennet on Ex. 3 was not his genuine signature. A handwriting expert's evidence is of very little value and as the learned Sessions Judge points out, the genuine signature with which the handwriting expert compared the disputed signature was merely regarded as genuine because Ananta Kumar Purkait said it was genuine. This witness had stated that the signature on Ex. 3 was also genuine. It Seems to me that the evidence of Ananta Kumar Purkait is much more valuable than that of the handwriting expert. But in any event the evidence failed to establish that the permit was not genuine and as I have said, if there was any doubt in the matter the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and to be acquitted.

( 5 ) AN attempt was made to show that the writing in the body of the document was not the writing of any clerk in Mr. Bennet's office. But the evidence of the witness who deposed to thi