Schwabe C.J.

1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused on charges relating to a money order which came to his hands in his capacity of postman. I am quite at a loss to understand how, on the face of the evidence, in this case, the learned Judge could have arrived at the conclusion at which he arrived. In my judgment, it is against all the evidence. He has given entirely wrong grounds from start to finish.

2. The facts are that Rs. 20 was sent to a woman called Muniammal by her daughter who was away in the Malay States. The money order, Exhibit C, purports on the face of it, to have been paid over to the lady P. W. 1 and to bear her left hand thumb-mark witnessed by a man called Doraiswami. The accused says that he received that document and the money from the local postmaster, took it to P. W. 1, paid the money to her and got her receipt by taking her thumb-mark witnessed by Doraiswami. It is perfectly clear on the evidence that he did nothing of the kind. There can be no doubt whatever that the witnesss signature is a forgery and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the thumb-mark on the document is not the thumb-mark of P. W. 1, hut is the t