WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

The accused-appellant was indicted on three counts. He was acquitted on the first and third counts, but convicted and sentenced on the second count. The second count is for fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine, a document that he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document by handing over a cheque valued at Rs. 480,000 to Joseph Thambirajah, Manager of the Hatton National Bank, Chetty Street, an offence punishable under section 454 read with 459 of the Penal Code.

At the time of the incident, the accused-appellant was a peon employed in the Colombo Municipal Council. He was attached to the Accounts Division of the Municipal Treasurer’s Department. According to the prosecution, two cheques marked පැ1 and පැ2 which purported to be forged cheques, were credited into two separate accounts at the Seylan Bank and Hatton National Bank. P1 is the cheque relating to the second count that was presented to the Hatton National Bank.

Evidence had been led to establish that the account in HNB has been opened in the name of one Murdala Ralalage Kumara Wijesighe. Such a person, however, could not be found. The cheque for Rs.480,000/-, marked P1, had been deposited into this account and subsequently, Rs.455,000/- was withdrawn. The representative from the Registration of Persons Department stated that they had not issued the Identity Card that was found to have been presented to the HNB in the course of opening the said account. Although the second count was that, use of a cheque bearing number 015197, which the appellant had reason to believe to be a forged document, the said cheque was not sent to the EQD for examination. In proving the second charge, the prosecution relied on mandate card, deposits and withdrawal slips. The EQD’s opinion was that the handwriting on the mandate card, deposit slips, and withdrawal slips (which were marked as P1 to P5 and P10, when sent to the EQD) is similar to the specimen handwriting of the accused- appellant.

Written submissions have been filed on behalf of both parties prior to the hearing of the appeal. At the hearing, the learned President’s Counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondent made oral submissions. At the outset of his submissions, the learned President’s Counsel informed the court that he would pursue only one ground of appeal. The said ground is whether there is enough evidence to connect the accused-appellant to the offence.

While not admitting it, the learned President’s Counsel did not challenge the correctness of the EQD’s opinion stated in his report. The contention of the learned President’s Counsel for the appellant was that the EQD’s opinion could only be used as corroborative evidence and there was no substantive evidence to prove the second charge against the appellant. Therefore, he contended that the accused- appellant should be acquitted of the second count as well, because there is no evidence that the appellant used a forged document as genuine.

The second count to which the appellant was convicted is using as genuine a forged document. EQD formed his opinion that the aforesaid documents tendered to the Hatton National Bank were forged documents. As the EQD’s opinion is not an issue in this appeal, this court has to consider whether the appellant used the cheque bearing the number 015197 knowing that it was a forged document.

Apart from the EQD report, the only items of evidence against the appellant, as admitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General and the learned President’s Counsel, are evidence that the appellant had the opportunity to tender the forged document to the bank and evidence of his subsequent conduct, namely that on 01.01.1997, the day this fraud was detected, the accused left his workplace early and failed to report to work after 01.01.1997. It is to be noted that the aforementioned two matters create only suspicion, and this evidence does not establish the fact that he used a fo