The evidence of a fingerprint expert is admissible even if the expert has not had the opportunity to explain his findings to the magistrate.

The substance of the prosecution is that the petitioner himself using his position as President and Treasurer of the society had made false entry in the consolidated loan application dated 2-9-1961, Ex. P.8, as though a loan for Rs. 500 had been applied for by one Munsif Chinnappa Mudali and in that application affixed his left hand thumb impression as though it is the thumb impression of Munsif Chinnappa Mudali and then further in the solvency certificate relating thereto namely, Ex. P.7, he had affixed his own thumb impression as though it was the thumb impression of Chinnappa Mudali, P.W. 1. He had also falsely endorsed in his own handwriting that those thumb impressions were the impressions of P.W. 1. The petitioner after getting the funds from the Co-operative Central Bank, showed a false disbursement in favour of P.W. 1 by himself falsely affixing the left hand thumb impression of P.W. 1 in Exs. A 16 and A 17 which are the loan disbursement sheet and a copy thereof dated 27-9-1961. In doing so, the petitioner has dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 500 for which he has falsely applied in the name of P.W. 1, thereby the petitioner has committed various offences punishable under Ss.467, 471, 477-A and 409 I.P.C.

2. The appellate Sessions Judge exercised great caution in appreciating the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 the Supervisor and the Secretary respectively of the said Bank and ultimately acted on their evidence for, the learned Judge found corroboration from the other evidence in the case. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge has given the findings that it is very difficult for him, putting two and two together to swallow the stand taken by P.Ws. 2 and 4. The learned Judge further observes that if any weight is to be given to their version it either shows gross negligence; or dereliction of duty on their part; or, some complicity in the fraud itself along with the petitioner or with others. The learned Judge, as observed earlier, has sought to find corroborative evidence in support of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The learned Judge also states that P.W. 3 also identified the handwriting of the petitioner in Exs. P.7, P.8, P.16 and P.17, as against the alleged thumb impressions of P.W. 1. The Secretary, P.W. 4 would submit that he had signed Ex. P.7. P.8. P.16 and P.17, but he did not witness P.W. 1 affixing his thumb impression. The President asked him to sign and so he signed. P.W. 4 also identified the handwriting of the petitioner as against the alleged thumb impressions of P.W. 1 in Exs. P.7, P.8, P.16 and P.17. The learned Judge, while dealing with the evidence of P.W. 13, the finger print expert, ultimately finds that the ten points of tallying given by the finger print expert in support are there. "One could see the above are characteristics well known to finger print science". He finally holds that the thumb impressions in question should have been made by the petitioner and he seeks corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 1 and also from P.Ws. 2, 3, 4. Learned Sessions Judge had no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.W. 3 who stated that the endorsements around these disputed thumb impressions are in the handwriting of the petitioner himself. On these findings, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions and sentences passed under Sections 467, 471, 477-A and 409, I.P.C.

3. Mr. Vanamamalai urged before me that in view of the probable complicity of P.Ws. 2 and 4 about which the learned Judge has mentioned, it is not safe to act on the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and the remaining evidence may not be sufficient to sustain the conviction. Although it is a matter of appreciation of evidence purely, I would like to deal with the evidence in a brief summary. P.W. 1 states that he did not out thumb impression on any application for loan or any paper 41/2 years back. Certainly not on the disputed documents in question. There was no attack made on the acceptability of the evidence of P.W. 1.