JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - The accused Abdul Hamid in this case was charged under sec. 82 (c) of Act III of 1877 with having personated one Moshrof Ali and having in such assumed character on the 5th November 1902 admitted execution of a bond before a Sub-Registrar. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of "not guilty" and the Sessions Judge who disagreed with that verdict has made a reference to this Court under sec. 307, C. Cr. P. 2. The Sessions Judge in his letter of reference points out (1) that the prosecution produced evidence to show that the accused told the writer of the document that he was not Moshrof Ali; (2) that the accused was by the witness Imamuddi seen on the day of registration (the 5th November 1902) going towards the Registry office with the writer, and (3) that the thumb-impression of the alleged executant taken at the time of registration corresponds exactly with that of the accused but does not correspond at all with that of Moshrof Ali. In the opinion of the Judge, the jury took a perverse view of the evidence in refusing to believe that Imamuddi saw the accused with the writer of the deed on the day it was registered and their refusal to place any reliance on the expert evidence with regard to finger prints was " absolutely and utterly unreasonable." 3. It appears therefore that the case was entirely upon the credit to be given to the evidence. 4. It is clear upon the evidence that the person who presented the document for registration admitted before the Sub-Registrar that he had executed it: that he placed his thumb-impression on the document below the execution endorsement and in the register of thumb-impressions and that the document purported to be signed by one Moshrof Ali. It is also clear that Moshrof Ali did not sign it. In the evening of the 5th November the document having been duly registered was ready to be returned to any one presenting the receipt for it. 5. On the 11th November the real Moshrof Ali accompanied by the witness Imamuddi came to the Sub-Registrar and made certain enquiries and the Information he received resulted in his lodging a complaint in writing stating that a fraud had been committed and that some person had personated him. 5. On the 11th November the real Moshrof Ali accompanied by the witness Imamuddi came to the Sub-Registrar and made certain enquiries and the Information he received resulted in his lodging a complaint in writing stating that a fraud had been committed and that some person had personated him. It was not stated in the complaint, that the accused Abdul Hamid was the parson who had personated the complainant but the Sub Registrar deposed that the complaint verbally informed him that it was the accused Abdul Hamid. 6. The complaint was forwarded to the District Registrar and on the 23rd November that officer gave orders for an enquiry to be made. After the enquiry had been held the Deputy Magistrate issued a summons against the accused under sec. 82 of Act III of 1877 and also against Ashanullah who was alleged to have identified the accused, and against Guranali, the person in whose favour the bond was executed. 7. Ashanuliah died before the trial and Guranali was discharged on the 18th February 1904 under sec. 253, Cr. P.C. The accused, Abdul Hamid, was not arrested till the 18th September 1904 and he was committed for trial on the 7th December last. 8. It is said, and it seems to be the fact, that the accused is the cousin of the wife of Guranali, The accused denied all knowledge of the bond alleging that the case had been got up by the witness Imamuddi in order to revenge himself against Guranali with whom the said Imamuddi was at enmity for various reasons alleged by him. 9. One of the most important questions for determination in this case is whether the accused falsely stated to the Sub-Registrar that he was Moshrof Ali the presenter and executant of this bond. Neither the Sub-Registrar nor any one from the Registry office could identify the accused as the person who had presented the bond and admitted execution. 10. Moshrof Ali did not execute the bond. As a reason for a false bond being set up he alleged that six months before the document was presented for registration he had a quarrel with Guranali and Abdul Hamid about giving change for a bad rupee. 10. Moshrof Ali did not execute the bond. As a reason for a false bond being set up he alleged that six months before the document was presented for registration he had a quarrel with Guranali and Abdul Hamid about giving change for a bad rupee. He said he was told by the witness Imamuddi that a bond in His name had been forged and that in consequence he went to the Registry office with him and made enquiries and then lodged a complaint. 11. The writer of the bond was the witness Kebal Krishna. He said that Ashanullah who was the brother of Guranali took him to Guranali's house and there he met the accused whom he had never seen before and then he was instructed by the accused to write the bond in Guranali's favour, Guranali not being present. He did not know the accused before but he said his name was Moshrof Ali. The accused did not sign the document. After writing out the bond Kebal Krishna says he came away leaving the accused in Guranali's house. He did not go to the Registry office. He did not know how Imamuddi came to know of the bond as he never spoke to him or any one else about it. In fact uutil he was summoned to appear before the Magistrate he had no idea that the bond was forged. 12. Imamuddi professes to have known the accused for 6 or 7 years but in cross-examination he said he did not know his name but only knew him by sight. On the day the bond was registered he said (and in this he contradicts Kebal Krishna) he met Kebal Krishna and the accused about 80 yards from Guranali's house and in the course of conversation he (Kebal Krishna) said he was going to the Registry office. They then parted, but a little later before sunset Kebal Krishna came to his house and told him about the bond, and, from another man, he heard the same story the next day. The following day he went to the Registry office and told the Sub-Registrar what he had heard. He was shown the bond and told to bring the man who had been defranded. He sent for Moshrof Ali who came to his house and they both proceeded to the Registry office where Moshrof Ali filed a petition of complaint. The following day he went to the Registry office and told the Sub-Registrar what he had heard. He was shown the bond and told to bring the man who had been defranded. He sent for Moshrof Ali who came to his house and they both proceeded to the Registry office where Moshrof Ali filed a petition of complaint. In cross-examination he said that the aconsed and Kebal Krishna were acquainted with each other. Afterwards he said they were not and denied having ever said so. He further said that Kebal Krishna told him that the man who said he was the executant of the document had confessed to him that his name was not Moshrof Ali but that at Guranali's solicitations he had agreed to personate him and that thereupon he came away. 13. The evidence of these two witnesses is extremely unsatisfactory. There seems to be reason to believe that Kebal Krishna was a party to the fabrication of the false bond and the Sessions Judge taking that view cautioned the jury against accepting his evidence pointing out that he seemed to be trying to make his connection with the document as distant as possible. 14. The Sessions Judge pointed to the jury the improbability that Kcbal Krishna if he was in the conspiracy would have told Imamuddi anything about the bond and he told them that it seemed to him that Imamuddi was unwilling to disclose the name of his informant and that he had therefore concocted the story that he had been told about it by Kcbal Krishna. 15. If the evidence of Kebal Krishna and Imamuddi stood apart I should have no hesitation in saying that any jury would be justified in refusing to accept it. 16. The only other evidence to which reference may be made is that of the mohurrir of the Sub Registrar who stated that he knew Ashanullah and was certain that it was he who identified the executant of the bond and Mahomed Amin, a special Sub-Inspector on Rs. 30 a month in the Criminal Investigation Department who was brought down from Calcutta to give evidence as an expert as to the correspondence between the thumb-impression of the accused with those on the bond and in the thumb-impression register kept at the Registry office. 30 a month in the Criminal Investigation Department who was brought down from Calcutta to give evidence as an expert as to the correspondence between the thumb-impression of the accused with those on the bond and in the thumb-impression register kept at the Registry office. He said he had studied finger impressions for five months in a training school and 13 months in the office of the Inspector-General of Police and that he had examined 2 and 3 lakhs of impressions and had himself taken thousands of impressions. He was of opinion, apparently without any reset tion, that the thumb-impressions made in Court by the accused corresponded with those made by the person who presented the bond, on the bond itself and in the thumb register, He gave his reasons for his opinion stating the various points of similarity and his opinion is therefore entitled to be treated with very great consideration. I have myself subjected the impressions to a careful study both with the naked eye and a magnifying glass. The impressions are unfortunately blurred and many of the characteristice marks are therefore far from clear, This renders it difficult to trace the marks enumerated by the expert witness as demonstrating the correspondence between the two sets of impressions. I am unable to say more than that in some respects a distinct similarity can be traced. Under these circumstances I should hesitate to say the jury were wrong in not accepting the evidence of the expert more specially when the evidence to corroborate his testimony was of such an unreliable character. 17. There is another matter to which I think some reference ought do be made. 18. The jury after having returned an unanimous verdict of "not guilty" were asked the following question :--" Do you find that the thumb-impression Ex. (d) (on the bond) is not the impression of the accused ?" and they gave the reply :--" We are not ready to accept the evidence of the expert as conclusive. We do not think he is properly qualified to give an opinion." 19. In my opinion the jury ought not to have been asked the question after having given a unanimous verdict of "not guilty." The verdict was a plain simple verdict of " not guilty " and in my opinion it was the duty of the Judge to accept it. In my opinion the jury ought not to have been asked the question after having given a unanimous verdict of "not guilty." The verdict was a plain simple verdict of " not guilty " and in my opinion it was the duty of the Judge to accept it. It is only when it is necessary to ascertain what the verdict really is that sec. 303, Cr. P.C. justifies the Judge in putting questions to the jury. Here it was unnecessary. The reasons which the jury gave for not accepting the evidence of Mahomed Amin are reasons which a jury might very well have honestly acted upon and in my opinion it would be going a long way to characterise the verdict, as perverse. 20. In my opinion the evidence afforded by the corespondence of thumb-impression? is ordinarily of great value and I should be sorry to lay down any proposition which might detract from its value generally. At the same time 1 should hesitate before I would convict on the mere result of a critical examination of thumb-impressions made by an expert. I know nothing about the particular expert witness who gave his evidence in the present case, The jury had an opportunity (the Judge of course had also) of seeing the witness and judging of his manner of giving evidence and it may be that they were honestly of opinion that they could not trust his evidence. 21. In the present case I should certainly not set aside the verdict unless I felt that the evidence as to the thumb-impressions was conclusive and as I have indicated I am not prepared to say it is. One ground upon which the Sessions Judge considered the verdict perverse was in that they refused to believe that Imamuddi saw the accused and the writer of the bond together on the day of registration. In the first place the writer denies that he was at the place alleged with the accused, and his story is altogether inconsistent with the two having been together. In the next place in his charge the Sessions Judge furnished the jury with reasons more or less cogent for disbelieving the evidence of Tmamuddi as to, how he came to know of the fraud. 22. Under these circumstances the verdict of the jury must stand. The accused is therefore acquitted and ordered to be released. Geidt, J. 23. In the next place in his charge the Sessions Judge furnished the jury with reasons more or less cogent for disbelieving the evidence of Tmamuddi as to, how he came to know of the fraud. 22. Under these circumstances the verdict of the jury must stand. The accused is therefore acquitted and ordered to be released. Geidt, J. 23. The accused, Abdul Hamid, was placed on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Chittagong sitting with a jury on the charge that he had falsely personated Moshrof Ali and in such assumed character had presented a document for registration, and admitted its execution, thereby committing an offence under sec. 82 (c.) of the Registration Act, 1877. The jury acquitted the accused and the Judge has referred the case to this Court under sec. 307, Cr. P. C, with an expression of his opinion that the offence charged had been established and that the accused should be convicted. 24. The accused Abdul Hamid and Moshrof Ah, the person alleged to have been personated, are inhabitants of the same village, Poichari. The document (Ex. 1) in respect of which the charge was laid is a bond purporting to have been executed by Moshrof Ali in favour of Guran-ali, who is married to Abdul Hamid's cousin and resides at Barapatia some 7 or 8 miles from Poichari. This document was on 5th November 1902 presented for registration at the Adunagor Sub-Registry office by a person calling himself Moshrof Ali lie was identified as such by Quran's brother Ashanulhah, since dead, and admitted execution of the deed. His signature was placed on the document below the endorsement of admission of execution and the impression of his left thumb was taken in the same place and also in a Register kept for the purpose. The former impression is marked Ex. 1 (d) and the latter Ex. 2. About a week afterwards Moshrof Ali, who is a chowkidar appeared at the Sub-Registry office, accompanied by Imamuddi, a duffadar of chowkidars, and presented a written complaint in which he stated that a forged bond had been presented by a fictitious Moshrof, and asked for an enquiry. In the written complaint the name of the personator was not inserted, but the Sub-Registrar deposes that Abdul Hamid's name was mentioned orally. In the written complaint the name of the personator was not inserted, but the Sub-Registrar deposes that Abdul Hamid's name was mentioned orally. An enquiry was held and in the result warrants were issued amongst others for Abdul Hamid, but he was not arrested till 18th September 1904. 25. Moshrof Ali denies that he executed the document Ex. 1, or that he took it to the Sub-Registry office, or that he there admitted its execution. His denial is supported by the appearance of the impression of his left thumb. An officer from the Criminal Identification Department of the Inspector-General of Police, who has examined many thousands of such impressions and professes to be an expert in the subject, has deposed that Moshrof Ali's thumb-impression taken in Court differs entirely from the thumb impressions Exs,1(d) and 2 man : presenter of the document, and the difference is so marked as to be plain to an untrained eye. It may therefore lie raken as absolutely certain that it was not Moshrof Ali himself who presented the document EX. 1 for registration. It remains to be determined whether the prosecution have -in establishing with reasonable certainty that it was the accused Abdul Hamid who personated Moshrof Ali. The cused denies the charge and in a written statement alleges that it was instigated by Imamuddi who is at enmity with Guranali. The direct evidence to prove personation is very slight. The Sub-Registrar and his mohurrir who received and dealt with the document could not recognise the presenter after a lapse of two years. The mohurrir was personally acquainted with Ashauullah who identified the presenter of the document but Ashanullah, as already indicated, is deed and no further inquiries in that direction are therefore possible. 26. The discovery by Moshrof Ali of the forgery and personation is said to have been due to the duffadar, Imamuddi, who is an important witness in the case. This man lives at Barapatia, the same village as Guranali, and he deposes that one day he met in the village accused and Kebal Krishna who in the course of conversation informed him that they were on the way to the Registration office He received some information the same night from Kebal Krishna and on the fallowing day from Nasit Mahomed which led him to go to the Sub-Registry office and make enquiries. These enquiries resulted in his sending a letter to Moshrof Ali, who then came and complained of the personation. 27. Kebal Krishna whose name appears on the document as the writer has also given evidence in the case. Re deposes that he wrote the document in Gnran-ali's house. Guranali was absent, but his brother Ashanullah was present, as also the accused with whom the witness was not previously acquainted. The accused called himself Moshrof Ali and said that he was the executant of the document though the execution of the document did not take place in the witness's presence, nor did the witness go to the llegistiation office This is the only piece of direct evidcuce against the accused, and the Judge has properly pointed out that Kebal Krishna seems to have been a party to the fabrication. It is very likely that Kebal Krishna knew or bad reason to Suspect that the person executing the deed was not Moshrof Ali, and it is quite consistent with what we know of human nature to suppose that after being a party to the frand he became frightened and revealed to Imamuddi what had been done. In order to conceal his complicity in the transaction Kebal Krishna minimises his own share in the transaction by denying that he witnessed the execution, by denying that he knew at the time of the frand, or that he said anything about it to Imamuddi. It is quite clear that very soon after the registration, Abdul Hamid was named as the person who had personated Moshrof Ali, and it is possible that it was from Kebal Krishna that Imamuddi learnt Abdul Hamid's name. But whether that be so or not, it was competent for the jury to refuse to act on Kebal Krishna's evidence, if that evidence is uncorroborated, and had the case rested on that evidence alone there could be no possible ground for disturbing the verdict of the jury. Imamuddi's evidence that he saw Kebal Krishna in the company of the accused, and that they told him they were going to the Registration office, may be regarded as some corroboration, if believed, but it was open to the jury to disbelieve it, considering that Kebal Krishna denied the incident. 28. Imamuddi's evidence that he saw Kebal Krishna in the company of the accused, and that they told him they were going to the Registration office, may be regarded as some corroboration, if believed, but it was open to the jury to disbelieve it, considering that Kebal Krishna denied the incident. 28. The Sessions Judge however is of opinion that the evidence of the Sub-Inspector from the Inspector-General's Criminal Investigation Department is quite sufficient to fasten the personation on the accused. The Sub Inspector took an impression of the accused's thumb before the committing Magistrate (it is marked Ex. 4) and professing himself an expert he declares that this impression is made by the same person as the impressions marked Ex. 1 (d) and Ex. 2, made on the document and the Register. If this evidence be accepted, it would corroborate the testimony of Kebal Krishna and put it beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who presented the document and admitted its execution. The jury have however declined to regard the Sub-Inspector as an expert and to act on his opinion, and it is necessary for us to consider whether they were wrong in so doing. Now though the classification of finger impressions is a science requiring much study and though it may require an expert in the first instance to say whether any two finger-impressions are identical, yet the reasons which guide him to this conclusion are such as may be weighed by any intelligent person with good powers of eyesight. In the present case the Sub-Inspector has enumerated nine different marks by which he ban come to the conclusion that Ex. 1 is the impression of the same thumb as Exs. 1 ((sic)) and 2. I have examined these impressions for myself with the aid of a magnifying glass, and endeavoured to test the Sub-Inspector's reasons. His first reason is that the pattern in the two sets of impressions is the same and his fifth is that the central core or ridge is the same. These reasons can readily be verified by a comparison of the impression, but they do not carry us very far, for it is obvious they may co-exist in the thumb-impressions of many different persons. With these two exceptions I have been unable to identify the marks enumerated by the witness as existing in the two sets. These reasons can readily be verified by a comparison of the impression, but they do not carry us very far, for it is obvious they may co-exist in the thumb-impressions of many different persons. With these two exceptions I have been unable to identify the marks enumerated by the witness as existing in the two sets. For instance the Sub-Inspector's second reason is that the number of ridges between the right delta and the inner terminus is the same. The Sub-Inspector has not mentioned the number of ridges thus indicated, and they are so blurred and run together, that I am unable to count them for myself. 29. The Sub-Inspector's third reason is as follows: "The 5th ridge below the right delta ends abruptly, also the 7th ridge ends at the same point as the 5th ridge, the 3rd ridge bores a little way and then stops." I am able to follow these features in Ex. 4, but cannot distinguish them in Ex. 1 (d) or in Ex, 2. L need not go in detail through the other distinguishing marks : it is sufficient to say that though I can often perceive them in one impression, (generally Ex. 1 in which the ridges stand out the clearest), I am unable to say that they exist in the other impressions. 30. The Sub-Inspector is a person who failed for his B.A. examination, and has been only a little more than a year in the Police. Considering the difficulty I have in perceiving the marks which lead him to say that the impression marked Ex 1 is made by the same person as Exs. I (d) and 2, I cannot, say that the jury were wrong in declining to regard him as an expert whose opinion they were bound to accept without the Corroboration of their own intelligence as to the reasons which guided him to his conclusion. In making these observations I desire to throw no doubt on the science of finger-impressions., or on the validity of the conclusions which may be established from a similarity in their marks. But, in the present case I am of opinion tint the similarity of the two sets of finger-impressions has not been established, and as the remaining evidence is far from cogent, I would refuse to disturb the verdict of the jury.