JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - The appellant Jawahir has been convicted of an offence punishable u/s 474, Indian Penal Code, in respect of a document, or more strictly speaking of two documents endorsed on separate halves of a sheet of paper, alleged to have been found in his possession. The documents in question are a blank promissory note and a blank receipt. Both purported to be signed by one Bindhayachal. At the top of each of these papers there is an adhesive stamp of one anna; but the signature is not across the stamp nor has the stamp been cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act, No. II of l899. The papers question are blank in this sense, that they are printed forms with none of the particulars tilled in. There is no specification of the person in whose favour either document purports to be executed, nor yet of the date or place of execution, nor yet of the amount of money involved. One document purports on the face of it to be a receipt where by Bindhayachal acknowledges to have received an unspecified some of money, on an unspecified date, from some person not specified. Similarly the other document purports to be a promissory note whereby Bindhayachal binds himself to pay to or to the order of an unspecified person an unspecified sum of money, with interest and compound interest after six monthly rests, the rate of interest also remaining unspecified. What I have been asked to consider on appeal is whether all the requirements necessary to a conviction u/s 474, Indian Penal Code, have been satisfied.

2. The first question is whether these documents are forgeries. The defence set up by Jawahir in the Court below was that these documents were genuine, that they were actually signed by Bindhayachal after a stamp had been affixed and that they were signed for good consideration, namely, in return for a loan of Rs. 900. One witness was called to prove this of the name of Nageshar Rai. He has, in my opinion, been very properly discredited by the learned Sessions Judge and I think it unnecessary to comment upon his evidence in detail. The question is whether the prosecution has affirmatively proved the signature of Bindhayachal on these papers to be a forgery. Bindhayachal went into the witness-box and denied having made either of these signatures. If he is believed, there is an end of the case so far as this point is concerned. There is very strong expert evidence, that of Mr. F. Brewester, to the effect that the two contested signatures do not agree with the admitted signatures of Bindhayachal and were not in fact written by the man who wrote the aforesaid admitted signatures. This is obviously not a case in which it is sought to base a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an expert in handwriting. The testimony on which the Court is asked to act is the sworn testimony of Bindhayachal. The question is whether Mr. Brewester's evidence affords reliable corroboration of Bindhayachal's evidence. I am of opinion that it does. Further, the proved circumstances of the case generally support Bindhayachal's denial. He is a wealthier man than Jawahir, and the two men are and have long been on inimical terms. Circumstances have been proved quite sufficient to make it improbable in a very high degree that Bindhayachal should have borrowed Rs. 900 from Jawahir, or that Jawahir should have been content to lend such a sum on the security of an inchoate promissory note and receipt. The Assessors who heard the evidence were in full agreement with the learned Sessions Judge in holding that these two papers were forged documents. I feel no hesitation about endorsing that finding. It has next been contended that the possession of these documents by Jawahir is not proved. The prosecution evidence is to the effect that they were found in the joint family house inhabited by Jawahir, by his father and by his brother. The prosecution has also been able to prove that after the finding of these documents Ja