JUDGMENT : C. A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The appellant, Sher Bahadur, has been convicted, for offences under S. 411 I.P.C., and S. 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), and has been sentenced to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for each of those offences, by the Magistrate, I Class, Jamshedpur. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, has confirmed the conviction, as well as the sentences, and a revision application, filed by the appellant, in the High Court of Patna, has been summarily dismissed. Hence this appeal, by special leave. 3. In the view that we take, that the prosecution cannot be considered to have established that the appellant had possession of, or control over the premises from which articles have been seized, so as to sustain the conviction, for the offences, mentioned above, it becomes unnecessary to consider, very elaborately, the various items of other evidence. It is enough to note that, on a search made on August 4, 1955, of a godown or premises known as Makdumpur Home Industries, Police Station Jugsalai, several articles of railway sleepers, iron channels, iron fiats and iron rods etc. were seized by the police. There is no controversy that the key of the godown was delivered to the police officers, by one Md. Siddique. According to the prosecution, the said Md. Siddique, and the appellant, were conducting a business in the godown, in question, and the articles seized belonged to Tisco and Railway Establishments and, as such, were stolen goods. Though the case was registered, as against a large number of persons, ultimately, eight accused, including the appellant, were sent up for trial. There was a common charge against all the accused, under sections 120 B read with S. 411 I.P.C., and 414 I.P.C., and also under S. 3 of the Ordinance; there was a separate charge against the appellant, under S. 411 I.P.C., and S. 3 of the Ordinance. The appellant disowned all connection with either Md. Siddique or with the premises, from where the articles were seized. 4. The Deputy Magistrate, Jamshedpur, acquitted all the accused, including the appellant, of the charge of criminal conspiracy, but convicted the appellant for offences under section 414 I. P. C., and s. 3 of the Ordinance. The appellant disowned all connection with either Md. Siddique or with the premises, from where the articles were seized. 4. The Deputy Magistrate, Jamshedpur, acquitted all the accused, including the appellant, of the charge of criminal conspiracy, but convicted the appellant for offences under section 414 I. P. C., and s. 3 of the Ordinance. Both the Deputy Magistrate, as well as the learned Sessions Judge, on appeal have held that the appellant was a partner of Md. Siddique and, therefore, the appellant should be considered to be in possession of the godown, when it was raided and articles recovered by the police. Both the Courts, again, found that the sleepers seized from the godown belonged to the Union Railway and, therefore, the appellant was guilty of the offence, under section 3 of the Ordinance. They further found that the iron channels, flats and rods and certain other articles, had been proved to be stolen articles, beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence the appellant was guilty under s, 411, I.P.C. As we have stated earlier, the High Court summarily rejected the criminal revision, filed by appellant. 5. When this appeal came up, before this Court, for hearing, on a former occasion, the appellant made a grievance that certain relevant circumstances, appearing in the evidence against him and which have been taken into account, for convicting him have not been put to him, when he was examined, under S. 342, Cr. P.C, and therefore he had no opportunity to offer his explanation, regarding those circumstances. By order dated August 2, 1966, this Court remitted the case to the District Magistrate, Jamshedpur, for a proper examination of the accused and for giving the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence, in support of any statement which he might make, in answer to those questions. In obedience to the directions of this Court, the appellant has been further examined, by the District Magistrate, and his explanations, recorded. 6. The material points, on which the appellant has been further examined, were with reference to the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, to establishment of the association of the appellant with Md. Siddque, and his Connection; on that basis, with the godown, in question. 7. In this appeal, Mr. 6. The material points, on which the appellant has been further examined, were with reference to the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, to establishment of the association of the appellant with Md. Siddque, and his Connection; on that basis, with the godown, in question. 7. In this appeal, Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that before the appellant could be convicted of being in possession of stolen articles, or being in possession of the railway stores, it is essential for the prosecution, to establish that the appellant had connection with, or control over, or possession of, the godown, in question. Counsel further points out that, with a view to establish the appellant's connection with the godown, the prosecution has let in evidence to prove that the appellant was a partner of Md. Siddque. The evidence, adduced by the prosecution, in that regard, counsel points out, does not establish the appellant's association with Md. Siddique, or with the godown, in question. If the connection of the appellant, with the godown, is not established, counsel points out, the appellant's conviction cannot be sustained. 8. Mr. B.P. Jha, learned counsel, appearing for the State of Bihar, on the other hand, has pointed out that both the Magistrate as well as the learned Session Judge, have, considered the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, and have, concurrently, come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established that the appellant was associated with the business, carried on by Md. Siddique, and, as such the appellant, had connection with the godown, in question. 9. It will be seen that the findings of both the Magistrate, and the Session Judge, regarding the appellant's possession of the godown, are based exclusively upon the oral evidence of P. ws. I. 14 and 28, and the documentary evidence. Exhibits 3, 4, N and O. Mr. Jha, learned counsel, has also stated that there is other evidence, on the record, which will further support (he findings on this point. The other evidence, which will support the findings, according to Mr. Jha, are the oral evidence of P. Ws. 8, 9, 35 and 39. 10. P. Ws. Exhibits 3, 4, N and O. Mr. Jha, learned counsel, has also stated that there is other evidence, on the record, which will further support (he findings on this point. The other evidence, which will support the findings, according to Mr. Jha, are the oral evidence of P. Ws. 8, 9, 35 and 39. 10. P. Ws. 35 and 39, are the police officers, connected with the search of the premises, which took place on August 4,1955, and the succeeding days, P. W. 35, the Sub-inspector of Police- has stated that, on receiving secret information, he proceeded to Makdumpur with a raid party and `located the I godown of Sher Bahadur,' where iron materials, copper wires etc., had been kept and were seized. But he also states that the location of the godown of Sher Bahadur was `by held I of villagers'. As to who those villagers are, is not to be seen from the evidence of this witness: In fact, in the cross-examination, he has stated that he did i not know about this godown, before he conducted the search. One of the persons, who appears to have helped him to locate the godown, is referred to as Jagnarain Lal, P. W. 5. We shall refer to his evidence, later on, and show that the said witness could not have known about Sher Bahadur being connected with the godown, in question, One thing that emerges from the evidence of P. W. 35 is that when he went to conduct the search, it was Md, Siddique, who produced the key of the godown, P. W. 32, is the Circle Inspector of Police. He only says that the Taal was commonly known as `Sher, Bahadur Ka Loha Ka Taal". Therefore, P.Ws. 35 and 39, have no personal knowledge of the connection of Sheri Bahadur, with the godown. 11. P.W. 9, does not also speak tot any connection of Sher Bahadur, with the godown, P. W. 5. who is a signatory to the search list, prepared by the Police, categorically says: I cannot say whose godown this was and to whom Badridas, had given it. It may be mentioned, at this state, that Badridas, referred to, by this witness, is P. W. 14. Bodhilal, the owner of the godown. It will therefore be seen that none of these witnesses speaks to Sher Bahadur's connection with the godown, 12. It may be mentioned, at this state, that Badridas, referred to, by this witness, is P. W. 14. Bodhilal, the owner of the godown. It will therefore be seen that none of these witnesses speaks to Sher Bahadur's connection with the godown, 12. We are therefore left only with the items of evidence relied on by the two Courts, for establishing the connection of the appellant, with the godown and the question naturally, arisen whether that evidence supports the findings, recorded as against the appellant, by those Courts. This evidence can be divided into three groups : the first group, consisting of the evidence of P. W. 1, the second group, consisting of the evidence of P.W. 14, considered along with Exhibits 3 and 4 ; and the third group, consisting of the evidence of the handwriting expert, P.W. 28, which, again, is to be considered along with Exhibits N and O. 13. Taking, first, the evidence of P. W. 1, he is the Chauikdar of Golpahari Makdumpur, wherein the godown is situated. He has stated that there was a Taal of Loha, belonging to the appellant. He has also referred to the fact that Md. Siddique, and several others, used to work in the Taal, to which place were brought, by several persons various articles, belonging to the Railway. He has admitted that he has seen on several occasions, such articles being removed, from railway waggons and brought to this godown. Though he admits that he has got a duty to inform the authorities concerned, about these matters, he has not, so far, done so ; nor has he sent any report, on this matter. Even on the day of the search, he has not come to identify any article, and his explanation is that he was sick. He does not say, as to how exactly he has personal knowledge of the godown belonging to the appellant. A reading of the evidence, of this witness, clearly shows that it is not safe to rely upon his version, when he casually speaks to the fact that there was a Taal of Loha, belonging to Sher Bahadur. 14. Coming to the second group, viz., the evidence of P.W. 14, and Exhibits 3 and 4, P.W. 14 is the landlord of the godown. He has stated that he has a building in Makdumpur village, consisting of 14 rooms and verandahs. 14. Coming to the second group, viz., the evidence of P.W. 14, and Exhibits 3 and 4, P.W. 14 is the landlord of the godown. He has stated that he has a building in Makdumpur village, consisting of 14 rooms and verandahs. It was given on rent, by him, in 1954, to Md. Siddique, who had executed an agreement, for payment of rent. His fur her evidence is to the effect that Siddique had taken only 8 rooms on rent, originally, but later on, the entire building was taken on rent, at an enhanced rate. This witness further speaks to the fact that, as there was default, in payment of rent, he instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, in the Court of the Munsiff of Jamshedpur. Both Md. Siddique and the appellant had been added as defendants, in the suit. In answer to a question, put by the Court, witness has stated that Md. Siddique was his tenant, but later on, Sher Bahadur had joined him, as a partner, and, therefore, the suit was instituted against both of them. P.W. 14 has further stated that the appellant was also running the business of Loha Taal, with Md. Siddique, in partnership. He also stated that the agreement, executed by Siddique, had been filed by him, in the Munsif's Court, in connection with the civil suit. 15. In cross-examination, P. W. 14 has stated that his two sons were arrested by the police and that he got them released, on bail. He has further stated that when the police office had come to his house, he showed him the agreement, executed by Siddique, and that he was assured, by the police officer, not to worry. But, when further pressed, regarding the agreement the witness has stated that he does not remember if the agreement, executed by Siddique, was shown to the Police Officer by the witness or by his lawyer. However, he has admitted that he has not taken back the agreement, from the Civil Court where it had been filed. Witness further states that he does not know whether the decree, obtained by him, in the civil suit, was exparte, but he has categorically stated that the defendants, in that suit, had filed written statements, and he has also admitted that he has filed the civil suit, after the present criminal case had commenced. Witness further states that he does not know whether the decree, obtained by him, in the civil suit, was exparte, but he has categorically stated that the defendants, in that suit, had filed written statements, and he has also admitted that he has filed the civil suit, after the present criminal case had commenced. No doubt he denies the suggestion that, in order to escape Prosecution, in this criminal case, he has filed the civil suit. Then he professes ignorance, as to whether the decree in the civil suit was passed in his favour, ex-parte, and he also admits that he does not know what business is carried on, in his house in Mukdumpur, by the tenants, as he has not gone to Mukdumpur for 7 or 8 years prior to the date of his giving evidence. He further deposes that as he was ad- vised, by his lawyer, that both Siddique and Sher Bahadur have to be sued, he instituted the suit against both of them, though nobody had told him that Sher Bahadur and Siddique were partners. 16. Exhibits 3 and 4, are copies of the judgment and decree, respectively, dated February 5, 1959, in the suit, instituted by P. W. 14 (Title Suit No. 542/73 of 1957-58) against Md. Siddique and the appellant, in respect of the godown. In the judgment, it is stated that it is a suit for ejectment of the defendants, and that the plaintiff has not claimed arrears of rent. The first defendant, viz., Md. Siddique, was monthly tenant. The ground for eviction, stated was both non-payment of rent and of sub-letting, without the consent of the landlord. A decree, in favour of P.W. 14, was passed, exparte, on February 5, 1959, and the plaintiff was allowed to recover possession of the premises. Exhibit 4, is the decree in the suit. It is clear from Exhibits 3 and 4, that specific case of P. W. 14, was for eviction based on the ground that Md. Siddique, who originally took the premises for rent, had sublet the premises, without the consent, of P. W. 14, in favour of the appellant. The defendants, including the appellant, were exparte in the suit. It is clear from Exhibits 3 and 4, that specific case of P. W. 14, was for eviction based on the ground that Md. Siddique, who originally took the premises for rent, had sublet the premises, without the consent, of P. W. 14, in favour of the appellant. The defendants, including the appellant, were exparte in the suit. It is significant that the default in payment of rent, as alleged by P. W. 14, should have happened, after July 11, 1955, and the suit itself instituted long after the present criminal proceedings stated, and when P. W. 14's sons had also been arrested, in connection with the criminal proceedings. While the evidence of P. W. 14, in the witness box was that the appellant was sued, as a partner of Md. Siddique, and that the appellant, as well as Md. Siddique, had filed written statements in the suit, his specific case in the suit was that the premises had been sub-let by Md. Siddique, to the appellant. It is also seen that both the defendants were exparte, in the suit. P. W. 14 has also given evidence to the effect that though he has obtained a decree for eviction, he has not taken steps for getting possession of the property. He has also given inconsistent answers, regarding the agreement of lease having been shown to the police officer. Having due regard to the Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, and the manner in which P. W. 14 was giving evidence, it clearly follows that he is a totally unreliable witness, and his evidence that the appellant had connection with the godown, as partner of Md. Siddique cannot be accepted. 17. This takes us on to a consideration of the last group of evidence, comprising the evidence of P.W. 28, the hand-writing expert, and Exhibits N and O.P.W. 28, who has been examined to prove the signatures in Exhibits N and the handwriting in Exhibit O, is the handwriting expert. From the evidence of the police officers and other witnesses, it is clear that these two exhibits have been recovered, from the godown, in question. According to the prosecution, the signatures, contained in Exhibit N, are that of Sher Bahadur, the appellant, and the handwriting, in Exhibit O, is that of one Bhusan Ram Paramanik. From the evidence of the police officers and other witnesses, it is clear that these two exhibits have been recovered, from the godown, in question. According to the prosecution, the signatures, contained in Exhibit N, are that of Sher Bahadur, the appellant, and the handwriting, in Exhibit O, is that of one Bhusan Ram Paramanik. Unfortunately, both the Magistrate as well as the Session Judge, have on the other hand, proceeded, on the basis that even the writings, in Exhibit O according to the prosecution, are that of the appellant. Bhusan Ram Paramanik, for whose examination, the prosecution appears to have taken several adjournments, has not come into the witness box. The Expert, P.W. 28, has given opinion to the effect that the signatures, in Exhibit N, in Urdu, marked X to X/7, are in the handwriting of the person, who wrote the specimen of writings, marked A series ; by the expert. Aseries are the signature taken from the appellant, by the Magistrate, and going by the evidence of P. W. 28, it w ill follow that the signatures, in Exhibit N, are those of the appellant. Prima facie, if that evidence is to be acted upon, it will show the connection of the appellant with the go down, because, Exhibit N was recovered from that premises. P. W. 28 does no say that the handwriting, in Exhibit O, is that of the appellant. But the question is, whether on the sole testimony of the Expert, that Exhibit N contains the signatures of the appellant, which fact is disputed by the appellant Sher Bahadurit can be safely concluded that the appellant had connection with the godown. 18. So far as expert evidence is concerned, it has been held, by a series of decisions of this Court that expert evidence as to handwriting, is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. It has also been held, by this Court, that for acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usual to see if that evidence is corroborated, either by clear, direct, or by circumstantial evidence. It has been held further that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient fer recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It has been held further that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient fer recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. The cases in which these principles have been laid down, have been referred to by this Court, in Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1967) ISCWR 449 (1). In fact, in this decision, a conviction was based, on the sole testimony of a handwriting expert, and this Court after a review of all the authorities, hold that where an expert opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and, with the assistance of the expert, come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This Court, further, to satisfy itself whether the testimony of the hand writing expert is acceptable or not, compared the disputed writings, with the admitted hand writings, and, ultimately, accepted the expert's testimony. No such attempt has been made, either by the Trial Magistrate, or the learned Session Judge on appeal, in this Case. The High Court has summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. 19. Having due regard to the principles laid down by this Court, we are satisfied that the evidence of the hand-writing A.I.R. (1967) I.S.C.W.R. 449. writing expert, P.W. 28, in this case, has not been corroborated by any clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, ultimately the position is that the prosecution's attempt, in this case, to establish connection of the appellant with the godown, in question has not been successful. The various aspects, that we have adverted to, for not acting on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 14 and 28, along with Exhibits 3, 4, N and O have not been adverted to by the two Courts. Once it is held that the appellant's connection with the godown is not established, it follows that the charges against him under section 411 I.P.C., and S. 3 of the Ordinance cannot be sustained. 20. In the result, the conviction, and sentence passed against the appellant, for the two offences, mentioned above, are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges, and the is allowed.