JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against the acquittal of the Respondent Kiran Bala Dassi by the learned Sessions Judge of Bankura by his judgment, dated the 6th February 1925. The short facts are as follows :-- The Respondent Kiran Bala Dassi along with three other persons, Upendra Nath Ghoshal, Kishori Mohan Misra and Panchu Gopal Chakravarti, was put upon trial for offences under sec. 82 of the Indian Registration Act. The case for the prosecution was that a deed of release, dated the 29th March 1923 purporting to have been executed by one Sindhu Bala Dassi in favour of Upendra Ghoshal was a forged document made at the instance of Upendra Ghoshal, that Panchu Gopal was the scribe and that be bad signed the name of the executant and that Upendra Ghoshal procured the registration of the document by causing Kiran Bala, the Respondent before us to personate Sindhu Bala Dassi before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, and that Kishori Mohan falsely identified Kiran Bala Dassi Sindhu Bala Dassi at the time of the registration of the document. During the course of the trial in the Court of first instance the learned Deputy Magistrate Mr. Ahmed directed that the Respondent Kiran Bala Dassi should give her thumb impression. Accordingly her thumb impression was taken and it was compared by an expert witness, being P. W. 17, Jnanada Chandra Bose, with the thumb impression purporting to be that of Sindhu Bala Dassi which was on the bond and which had been taken at the time of the registration of the deed and in the Sub book. The evidence of the expert was to the effect that the three thumb impressions, namely, that of Kiran Bala taken in the Court before the learned Magistrate, that which appeared on the deed and purported to be the thumb impression of Sindhu Bala and that which appeared in the Sub-Registrar's thumb impression book and which also purported to be the thumb impression of Sindhu Bala were in fact and in truth the thumb impression of one and the same person, and that the thumb impression of Sindhu Bala who had been examined as a witness for the prosecution and whose thumb impression had been taken in Court did not tally with the thumb impressions hereinbefore referred to. The learned Magistrate who tried the case acquitted Panchu Gopal, but he found that the three other accused persons, Upendra, Kishori and the present Respondent Kiran Bala Dassi were guilty and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. So far as Kiran Bala was concerned the sentence on her was that should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused persons thereupon preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Bankura. But it having appeared that there had been no compliance with the provisions of sec. 342, Cr. P. C., a retrial was ordered. On retrial by the learned Magistrate the accused were again convicted and sentenced to the terms of imprisonment as in the previous trial. There was then an appeal to the Sessions Judge and by his judgment, dated the 6th February 1925, the accused persons were acquitted. As regards the two accused Upendra Ghoshal and Kishori Misra the learned Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence against them to warrant a conviction. But as regards Kiran Bala Dassi the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that her thumb impression taken at the time of the trial was inadmissible in evidence, as such thumb impression had been taken illegally. Thereupon the present appeal has been preferred as stated by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Government by the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer that the Sessions Judge was clearly in error in holding that the thumb impression in question, namely, one that had been taken in Court of the Respondent Kiran Bala Dassi had been taken illegally, and in support thereof he has drawn our attention to the provisions of sec. 5 of Act XXXIII of 1920, being an Act which authorizes the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others. 5 of Act XXXIII of 1920, being an Act which authorizes the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others. Sec. 5 of Act XXXIII of 1920 runs as follows :--"If a Magistrate is satisfied that for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements (measurements as defined in the Act include finger impressions and foot-print impressions) or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order, and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a Mice Officer." We think this is sufficient authority for the course that was adopted by the learned Deputy Magistrate. As is well known, before the passing or the Act there was considerable controversy as to whether thumb impressions could be taken of a person by order of a Magistrate, and to settle all such doubts this Act was passed. 3. Then the question arises whether the evidence of the expert who had an opportunity of comparing the thumb impression of Kiran Bala which had been taken in Court with the thumb impressions on the deed and in the Sub-Registrar's thumb impression Look is admissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act makes the opinion of an expert on a matter like this admissible in evidence. Illustration (c) to sec. 15 makes it abundantly clear that in a case like the present the opinion of the expert formed by comparison of the various thumb impressions hereinbefore referred to is admissible in evidence. It would therefore follow that the procedure which was adopted by the Magistrate was one in strict accordance with the provisions of the law and that the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in saying that the thumb impression of Kiran Bala Dassi which had been taken in Court was one which had been taken illegally and against a fundamental principle of law. That being so, it is impossible to resist the conviction that the thumb impression which had been put on the deed at the time of the registration of the document was one which had been put not by Sindhu Bala Dassi but by Kiran Bala Dassi; in other words we are satisfied on the evidence on the record that it was Kiran Bala Dassi who had personated Sindhu Bala Dassi at the time of the registration of the document. We must therefore allow the appeal, and the only question now before us is what the sentence should he on Kiran Bala. She is stated to he a widow of over 45, and although there can be no doubt whatsoever that she did personate Sindhu Bala Dassi the time of the registration of the document before the Sub-Registrar it is abundantly clear from the evidence on the record that she was 8 puppet in the hands of oilier accused. Under these circumstances we have anxiously considered whether we should pass a sentence of imprisonment on her, and we have come to the conclusion that having regard to the amended provisions of sec. 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this is a case in which we can take action thereunder, and instead of sentencing Kiran Bala Dassi at once to any punishment we direct that she should be released on her entering into a bond with one surety of one hundred rupees to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year.