JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---The revision-petitioner challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur dated 9th March, 1977 confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sholapur dated 13th August, 1976 by which he conviced the accused for offences under section 381, 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed for the same, while setting aside his conviction for an offence under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was prosecuted for offences under section 381, 467, 477-A and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations on which the prosecution was founded are briefly these : In May 1973, the accused was serving as a Clerk in the scarcity sub-division No. 1 of Sholapur which was started as a temporary measures to give relief to that part of the scarcity affected area. (P.W. 2), Nagnath Badkar was the Head clerk. One Mr. Shimpi (P.W. 11), was the Deputy Engineer in charge of that scarcity Sub-Division. (P.W. 3) Kulkarni was the Awal Karkun attached to that scarcity sub-division. The accused and one Kamble (P.W. 12), were the clerks working in that office in addition to the Awal Karkun Kulkarni. The cheque book which was supplied to the sub-division was to remain in the custody of the Awal Karkun Mr. Kulkarni (P.W. 3). As no locker or cupboard was supplied for keeping the cheque book, this Kulkarni, it is alleged used to keep the cheque book in the drawer of his table and the entire staff of the Sub-Division used to sit and work in one room and it was he who used to hand over the cheque book in the presence of all. Whenever a cheque had to be issued it was the duty of Mr. Kulkarni to fill in the blanks and to obtain the signature of the Deputy Engineer Mr. Shimpi. Thereafter the cheque along with the muster roll had to be sent to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar then used to make payments. Sometime near about 4th Saturday in the month of May, 1973, Mr. Kulkarni left the headquarters after obtaining the permission on the Friday proceeding that Saturday. He had handed the cheque book on Friday and on the next day he had left for Kolhapur. Sometime near about 4th Saturday in the month of May, 1973, Mr. Kulkarni left the headquarters after obtaining the permission on the Friday proceeding that Saturday. He had handed the cheque book on Friday and on the next day he had left for Kolhapur. It is then the prosecution case that on 26th May, 1973, when (P.W. 1) Shivaji Jadhav was working as a clerk in the State Bank of India. Bali Ves Branch, Sholapur and was in charge of the Government debt. At about 11 a.m. one customer came to the counter and presented a cheque to him for encashment. Mr. Jadhav scrutinised that cheque as usual. On scrutiny he found some difference in the signature on the cheque and the specimen signature of Mr. Shimpi. He then made queries with the person who had presented the cheque. He asked him as to from where he had brought that cheque and the person who issued that cheque. He asked that person to come inside and sign the cheque. He waited for that customer to come inside and sign the cheque, but that customer who had evidently brought in a forged cheque, went away. That is why Mr. Jadhay reported the matter to the Branch Manager and handed over the cheque to him. The cheque which was presented by that man was bearing No. 201509 and book No. Y-004031 B, for Rs. 25,00,000/-/ The police were contacted. Mr. Shimpi, the Deputy Engineer also arrived on the spot. He was surprised to find his forged signature on the cheque. The police recorded the statement of Mr. Shimpi. The cheque was attached. The specimen hand-writing of Aval Karkun Mr. Kulkarni and the accused and the specimen signature of Mr. Shimpi were taken during the course of the investigation. These specimen hand-writing and signature were sent to the Hand Writing Expert, Dr. Khan (P.W. 14). Dr. Khan expressed an opinion that the body writings on the cheque are written by the writer of Exhibits 35 to 40 viz. the accused. It is on these facts that the accused was prosecuted. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. He denied that the specimen hand writing Exhibit 35 to 40 were his. At the trial, the material witnesses examined by the prosecution were Mr. Shimpi, the Deputy Engineer, (P.W. 11), Mr. Kulkarni, the Awal Karkun (P.W. 3), and Mr. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. He denied that the specimen hand writing Exhibit 35 to 40 were his. At the trial, the material witnesses examined by the prosecution were Mr. Shimpi, the Deputy Engineer, (P.W. 11), Mr. Kulkarni, the Awal Karkun (P.W. 3), and Mr. Khan the Hand Writing Expert (P.W. 14). Although the accused had denied that the specimen hand-writings were his, having regard to the suggestion made to the panch witness that the accused was required to copy drown the body writings of the cheque, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the specimen hand writings was that of the accused. He also took note of the fact that beyond the expert evidence of Mr. Khan there was nothing to connect the accused with the crime or the cheque. However since he accepted the opinion of Mr. Khan and on comparison of the writing in the cheque and the alleged specimen hand writing of the accused, he was of the view that the writings of the cheque was similar to the specimen hand writings of the accused. He, therefore, concluded that a careful study of the body writings of the cheque and the specimen hand writings of the accused clearly show that the body writings of the cheque are of the accused. He, therefore, convicted the accused for offences under section 381, 467, 477-A and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The correctness of that conviction was challenged by an appeal to the Sessions Court at Sholapur. The appeal was heard by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. It was contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that a conviction which is based solely on the opinion of an expert is bad in law. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, observed in paragraph 6 of his judgment as under :--- "........... In view of this submissions the only point that arises for my decision is "whether the evidence of document examiner can be relied upon and accuseds conviction can be based on this evidence alone?" and in paragraph 7 of the judgment, he gave his answer in the affirmative. In view of this submissions the only point that arises for my decision is "whether the evidence of document examiner can be relied upon and accuseds conviction can be based on this evidence alone?" and in paragraph 7 of the judgment, he gave his answer in the affirmative. It may be mentioned that he also observed that in addition to the evidence of the expert viz. Mr. Khan, there were some other circumstances to corroborate the opinion of Mr. Khan. He, therefore, confirmed the conviction of the accused for offences under section 381, 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code along while acquitting him of the offence under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness of that conviction and sentence is challenged in this revision application. Miss Vaidya, learned Advocate for the accused has assailed the judgment of conviction firstly, on the ground that the Sessions Court was not right in law in coming to the conclusion that the conviction could be based solely on the evidence of an expert. Her second submissions is that the so called circumstances mentioned as circumstances to corroborate the opinion of Mr. Khan in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are not only not borne out by the record but in fact are inconsistent with the record of the case. She also submitted that the learned Magistrate was not right in observing that the body writings of the cheque on a comparison appeared to him clearly to be the hand writings of the accused who is alleged to have given the specimen hand writings Exhibit 35 to 40. She also urged that having regard therefore to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, that there is no evidence of identification of the accused as the person concerned with the writing or the presentation of cheque and having particular regard to the evidence of Kulkarni that before leaving for Kolhapur he had handed over the cheque to clerk Kamble (P.W. 12) whose specimen hand writing was not taken or sent to the expert for being compared with the body writing of the disputed cheque, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. Mr. Damle, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Damle, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. Although he conceded that the learned Sessions Judge had not done his duty in expressing any opinion after a comparison of a disputed hand writing with the specimen hand writing of the accused, he submitted it is perfectly open for this Court to form an opinion by comparing the specimen hand writing of the accused with the disputed hand writing which are on record of the case. In my opinion, the submissions of Miss. Vaidya are well founded and must be upheld. It is clear from the judgments of both the courts that the case rested mainly on the opinion of Mr. Khan, the Hand Writings Expert who expressed an opinion that the body writing of the cheque is similar to the hand writing of the specimen hand writings of the accused at Exhibits 35 to 40. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave an affirmative reply to the point for decision raised by him namely, as to whether the evidence of document examiner can be relied upon and the accuseds conviction can be based on this evidence alone, he was evidently in error. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. The question had arisen in several cases and recently the Supreme Court had once again to decide that question of law in (Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab)1, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1091. In paragraph 7 of the judgment it is observed as under :--- "............. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution that the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in (Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.)2, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 381, that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in (Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa)3, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1728, that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in (Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar)4, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 529, where it was pointed out by this Court that experts evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, the take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in read to handwriting in (Fakhuddin v. State of M.P.)5, A.I.R. 1967 1326, and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and Americal Courts. Vide in (Gurney v. Landlands)6, 1822(5-B) Addl. 330 and (Matter of Alfred Fosters Will)7, 34 Mich. 21. The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case : "Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any ones opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil". We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the hand writing expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence". Having regard to the above position of law, it would appear that no conviction can be founded solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. While the learned Magistrate did not look for any such corroborative evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there were some circumstances which would corroborate the opinion of the hand writing expert Mr. Khan. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has observed as under : "Now it remains to be seen whether the accused can be found guilty of the offences charged on the basis of Mr. Khans evidence alone. In view of other proved circumstances on record, I am convicted to hold that he can be. Because, other proved circumstances on record not only lend support to Mr. Khans opinion but further lead to a conclusion that none else but the accused must have forged disputed cheque. It is proved in this case that the cheque book in question used to remain in the drawer of Mr. Kulkarnis table and his drawer had no lock. It is admitted that during relevant period not only the accused was serving in the said office but he used to sit by the side of Mr. Kulkarnis table. He was also conversant with the procedure relating to drawing of cheques and encashment thereof. Hence, it can be said that the accused knew as to whether the cheque book in question was and how it could be used. Because of his such position, it was easy for the accused to remove concerned cheque from the drawer of Kulkarnis table and to use it in the alleged manner. From the evidence of Mr. Khan, it is established that the body writing of the disputed cheque, is not in the hand writing of Mr. Kulkarni and, therefore, it can be held that Mr. Kulkarni did not handle the disputed cheque. From the evidence of Mr. Khan, it is established that the body writing of the disputed cheque, is not in the hand writing of Mr. Kulkarni and, therefore, it can be held that Mr. Kulkarni did not handle the disputed cheque. There is nothing on record to show that just before the day of incident, the disputed cheque book was in the custody of or handled by any other member of the staff. Hence, there was no possibility of the disputed cheque being written by Mr. Kulkarni, nor by any other member of the staff. It is further proved that the cheque in question was not signed by Mr. Shimpi. All these proved circumstances go to suggest that none else but the accused must have secured the disputed cheque and written its contents in his own handwriting". Miss Vaidya has vehemently attacked this reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as not warranted by the record but as being inconsistent with the record. A scrutiny of the evidence would show that her contentions are justified and even Mr. Damle had to concede as he must that he had no rely to these submissions of Miss Vaidya. To start with, the first corroborative circumstances relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the cheque book used to remain in the drawer of Mr. Kulkarnis table which had no lock and that because the accused was serving in the said office and he used to sit by the side of Mr. Kulkarnis table it was easy to remove the concerned cheque and to use it in the alleged manner. So far as this part of the case if concerned, the learned Judge has lost sight of the evidence of Kulkarni himself, in his evidence in chief to this effect : " I used to keep the cheque book in the drawer of my table. There was no arrangement for locking the drawer as our office was not supplied with any cupboard. The entire staff of our sub division used to sit and work in one room and I used to handle the cheque book in the presence of all". Admittedly beside the accused one Mr. Kamble was also working in that office, so also was Mr. Nagnath Radkar. Therefore, the first reasoning is not borne out by the evidence on record. The entire staff of our sub division used to sit and work in one room and I used to handle the cheque book in the presence of all". Admittedly beside the accused one Mr. Kamble was also working in that office, so also was Mr. Nagnath Radkar. Therefore, the first reasoning is not borne out by the evidence on record. The next reasoning of the learned Judge to the effect that there is nothing on record to show that just before the day of the incident, the disputed cheque book was in the custody of or handled by any other member of the staff, is clearly wrong for the simple reason that Mr. Kulkarni (P.W. 3), has admitted in his cross examination that in his statement before the police he had stated that some time prior to the 4th Saturday in the month of May 1973, before proceedings to Kolhapur, he had handed over the cheque book to Shivaji Kamble (P.W. 12). There could not be better proof so far as the defence is concerned about the cheque book being in the possession of Shivaji Kamble immediately prior to the cheque being presented in the bank. In fact it appears from the evidence of Head Clerk Nagnath Radkar (P.W. 2), that after the fraud was discovered it was Kamble who handed over the cheque book to him. Therefore both from the earlier statement of Mr. Kulkarni the Awal Karkun is this statement before the police and the evidence of Mr. Radkar, the head clerk it is clear that before leaving the headquarters for Kolhapur immediately prior to the incident, Mr. Kulkarni who was handling the cheque book had handed over the cheque book to Kamble and that immediately after the discovery of the fraud when the cheque was presented by an unidentified person the cheque book was in the custody of Kamble who handed it over to Mr. Radkar. It would therefore appear that the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that there is nothing on record to show that just before the day of the incident the disputed cheque book was in the custody of or handled by any other member of the staff is contrary to the record of the case. Another ground which was mentioned by the learned Judge is that the hand writing on the disputed cheque is not that of Mr. Kulkarni the Aval Karkun. Another ground which was mentioned by the learned Judge is that the hand writing on the disputed cheque is not that of Mr. Kulkarni the Aval Karkun. But it is significant to note that the police have not at all taken the specimen hand writing of Kamble, (P.W. 12) who had as much access to the cheque book as the accused or any other clerks. The last ground that it is proved that the cheque is not signed by Mr. Shimpi could hardly be a circumstances to connect the accused with the writing on the cheque in question. It would therefore appear that all these reasons which have been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as circumstances appearing on the record as lending corroboration to the evidence of Mr. Khan, are inconsistent with the record and, therefore, they must be left out of consideration. It would thus appear that if these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he would not have held as he has done that there were circumstances to corroborate the opinion of Mr. Khan. I might mention here that unlike the learned Magistrate the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not bothered to express any opinion on a comparison of the disputed hand writing with the alleged specimen hand writing of the accused. Therefore, if the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are left out of consideration as they must be the conviction recorded by him would be resting only on experts evidence and the same cannot be sustained having regard to the settled law on the point. It is true that it is permissible for this Court to compare the hand-writing on the disputed cheque with the alleged specimen hand-writing of the accused. Miss Vaidya submitted that it is not proved that the alleged specimen hand-writings Exhibits 35 to 40 are the hand-writings of the accused as he has denied the same. But even assuming for a moment that they are the admitted handwritings of the accused, I am unable to agree with the view of the learned magistrate that an careful study of the body writings of the cheque and the specimen hand writings of the accused would clearly show that the body writings of the cheque are of the accused. But even assuming for a moment that they are the admitted handwritings of the accused, I am unable to agree with the view of the learned magistrate that an careful study of the body writings of the cheque and the specimen hand writings of the accused would clearly show that the body writings of the cheque are of the accused. On the other hand I have also carefully studied the specimen hand writings and I cannot agree with the opinion of the learned magistrate. I am afraid that it could not be said that the disputed hand writings are in the hand of the accused. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 13th August, 1976 and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 9th March, 1977 convicting the accused and sentencing him are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. He should be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some to other case. The rule is made absolute. -----