JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J. 1. Sri Kant Brahman has been convicted of offences under sections 467 and 465 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The evidence for the prosecution will be found summarised at page 30 of the printed book. The learned Judge held that he might convict the accused relying only on the evidence of an expert in handwriting. We need hardly point out that to base a conviction upon the opinion of an expert in handwriting is, as a general rule, very unsafe. There may be cases in which the handwriting concerned is of such a peculiar character and discloses so many variations from the ordinary standard that the conclusion would be morally irresistible. Such cases, however, are very rare. But the prosecution, as the learned Judge points out, relied not merely on the evidence of the expert and of Mr. Mclntyre, the Assistant Manager, whose signature was forged, but very strongly on facts, which they considered, proved inferentially that the accused not only forged the draft, but also stole it from the draft book. 2. Their Lordships after discussing these facts continued: Thus we are left in the case with the evidence of the expert and the further fact that Sri Kant as a writer of drafts before the 7th October, 1902, had the opportunity of taking away a draft form. As regards the latter of these two pieces of evidence we say at once that the argument as put, and the evidence which supports it, is not sufficiently exhaustive. All that has been established is that Sri Kant might have stolen the draft, but, as the evidence shows, so also might any other clerk, employed in the same department, have stolen it. As regards the evidence of the expert the learned counsel put before us with great labour and pains and remarkable ingenuity, twenty-five different points of similarity, which he claimed could be found in exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit X-3, and exhibit X-4, and all of which he pressed upon us as points to he found in the handwriting admitted to be that of the accused. His argument was that the concurrence of so many points of similarity between the exhibits above mentioned and the handwriting of the accused had a cumulative force, which made any other inference than this impossible. His argument was that the concurrence of so many points of similarity between the exhibits above mentioned and the handwriting of the accused had a cumulative force, which made any other inference than this impossible. A great number, indeed the majority of the points of similarity to which our attention was drawn, had in themselves no evidential force. Many of them, too, had to be explained by the theory that what would have been otherwise similar was more or less disguised, and that the similarity was a similarity in disguise. We gave full attention to what the witness Hardless considered a very strong piece of evidence, viz, that the writing on the forgery was what he called a heavy hand and the writing in the ‘O’ series was a light ‘ hand. (This is a series of documents which is admitted to be in the handwriting of Gopal Dass.). This is too uncertain to act upon. It may well be that some person whose handwriting was ordinarily light, would carefully suppress that evidence of identity when he came to forge a document. The traces of the attempt to render the writing such as would be Written by what is called a heavy writer, are strikingly manifest in exhibit A. In exhibit B, on the other hand, the writing generally is done by a hand considerably lighter than the writing in exhibit A. There is in exhibit B, the letter F, which, in our opinion, is a very remarkable Letter and looks a most naturally formed letter, to which no parallel has been shown us in the writing of the accused. If the accused is to be convicted on the evidence upon the record, he is practically to be convicted upon the supposed similarity between his handwriting and that of the two, fragmentary pieces of writing, upon which the charge is based. The real difficulty in this case is that the prosecution, although they made every attempt to establish that the writing of the forged exhibits is unlike that of Gopal Dass and like that of Sri Kant, have made no real attempt to show that Sri Kant is the only man in the Bank who could have written the forged exhibits. The real difficulty in this case is that the prosecution, although they made every attempt to establish that the writing of the forged exhibits is unlike that of Gopal Dass and like that of Sri Kant, have made no real attempt to show that Sri Kant is the only man in the Bank who could have written the forged exhibits. Having regard to our experience, which is that persons of similar education and employment and also employed together have a strong tendency to assimilate their handwritings, we feel that this is a serious lacuna in the case for the prosecution and that we have no alternative but to allow this appeal. We allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquit Sri Kant of the offence of which he is charged. As he is on bail, the bail will be discharged.