Present: Jayewardene A.J.  1930

KING v. PERERA.

61-D. C. (Crim.) Nuwara Eliya, 145.

Handwriting expert.-Uncorroborated, testimony of expert-Unsafe to convict.

It is not safe to base a conviction solely on the evidence of an expert in handwriting.

APPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Nuwara Eliya. - The facts appear from the judgment.

R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with R. C. Fonseka), for accused appellant.

Crosette-Thambiah, C.C., for respondent.

July 9, 1930. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

The accused was charged with dishonestly signing a false document, a pari-mutuel pay-out chit for Rs. 1,000, on February 13, 1929, at Nuwara Eliya with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was signed by one S. A. Perera, and also with abetting the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the said sum by some person unknown. The accused was convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

The Ceylon Turf Club employs about twenty pay-out clerks, two supervisors, and a cashier at Nuwara Eliya, who work inside one building. The pay-out clerks when they require funds fill up a requisition and sign it, obtain the initials of a supervisor, and present the chit to the cashier, who pays the amount to the clerk.

On February 13, it was discovered that a sum of Rs. 1,000 had been paid out on a forged chit (P1) to a pay-out clerk who signed himself " S. A. Perera " for race No. 1, window No. 3. There was no pay-out clerk bearing that name, and that window, it was found, was not working on that day. Suspicion rested on a pay-out clerk named E. W. Dep who worked at window No. 2. Mr. Hutchins, the supervisor, thought that the person who handed him the chit to be initialled was a dark person who resembled Dep. The figure " 3 " in the impugned document was also said to resemble the figure " 3 " in Dep's paying-out statement (P23).

The accused, K. C. Perera, was employed as a clerk in the 50-cent sweep. The Police Inspector noticed certain similarities in the accused's signature and the impugned one and skilfully obtained further specimens of his. writing and prosecuted the accused. There is no direct evidence of any kind against the accused. No one has seen the accused write or sign the forged chit, and no one is able to identify him as the person who presented it or to whom the money was paid out, nor are there circumstances of any value that would

serve to connect the accused with this forgery. The accused worked at the 50 cents sweep in another building, and would normally have no access to the supervisor who initialled the chit or to the cashier who paid the money. I think that it is clear that the chit (P1) was presented by a person working inside the" building who knew the system of work. Dep in his evidence stated that he stayed at Nuwara Eliya during this meet with the accused and his brother. If Dep is innocent the circumstance is of no value at all, but if Dep was a party to the fraud, his evidence being that of an accomplice needs corroboration and would be viewed with suspicion. In any event the fact that Dep and the accused lived together does not lead us far, but it may show that he had opportunities of acquainting himself with the accused's writing and of imitating it if he wished. The whole case thus rests on" the evidence afforded by a comparison of handwriting. On the one side we have several documents proved to be in the accused's writing, and on the other side only one document (P1) which contains the writing in question. Mr. Symons, the handwriting expert, was of opinion that the person who wrote the signature " S. A. Perera " on (P1) also wrote the signatures " K. J. Perera " on documents (P2), (P3), and (P6) to (P21). He had no doubt whatever on the point. He Was also of opinion that the same person who wrote the body of (P1) also wrote the body of writings shown in (P4) and P5. It has been proved that (P4)