Judgment : The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras of offences under three counts of section 467, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant who figured as the second accused before the trial Court was tried along with another accused who figured as the first accused for offences punishable under sections 120-B and three counts of 467, Indian Penal Code, while other accused was tried for offences under sections 120-B,379 and 109 read with 467, Indian Penal Code, three counts. The other accused was found not guilty of the charges and was acquitted. The learned Judge has convicted this appellant of offences under three counts of section 467, Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of the charge under section 120-B,. Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts are very simple: P.W.1 who is the approver in. this case was a tailor having tailoring shop in an’ upstairs portion of the premises in Mount Road. This appellant and the other accused who were residing in Santhi Mansion, Purasawalkam were visiting the shop of P.W.1 during various periods between 1970 and 1971 and they used to place orders with him for stitching clothes for them. The other accused was working as a Constable attached to the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau and was attached to the Guindy Unit. They used to visit P.W.1's shop between 6 and 8 p.m. and they also used to introduce other customers to P.W.1. P.W.2 who is a Junior Assistant in the E. S. I. Corporation and who was residing in house No. 28, Aiyamperumal Mudali Street, Royapettah, Madras during the relevant period, used to get letters from a relative of his one Abdul Quadir who was residing in London and during Ramzan Festival, Abdul Quadir was in the habit of sending to P.W.2, British Postal Orders by way of gift. On the 8th and 9th of November, 1971, the appellant and the other accused went to P.W.1's shop, selected clothes and placed orders for stitching the same for them. This appellant placed orders for stitching a half slack shirt for him, while the other accused placed orders for stitching a full hand shirt for him. P.W.1 made the necessary entries Exhibit P-1 in his order book and the other accused signed in that order book. This appellant placed orders for stitching a half slack shirt for him, while the other accused placed orders for stitching a full hand shirt for him. P.W.1 made the necessary entries Exhibit P-1 in his order book and the other accused signed in that order book. On 10th November, 1971, both this appellant and the other accused went to the shop of P.W.1 for the purpose of getting delivery of the stitched clothes. On that occasion the other accused placed orders for another full-hand slack shirt while this appellant placed orders for another half-hand slack shirt. P.W.1 who had charged on the earlier occasion Rs. 40 for a full-hand slack shirt and Rs. 30 for a half-hand slack shirt, charged this time Rs. 43 for the full-hand slack shirt and Rs. 33 for the half-hand slack shirt. This appellant paid for the two shirts for which he had placed orders. But the other accused paid only a part of the charges and owed a sum of Rs. 23 to P.W.1 towards the balance. Then, in the second week of December, 1971, the appellant and the other accused went to P.W.1's shop and the other accused selected terelene cloths for a fullhand shirt and pant and placed orders for stitching the same. P.W.1 charged Rs. 145 for them. The other accused paid Rs. 15 as advance, P.W.1 made an entry Exhibit P-2 in his order book and the other accused signed it. On 14th December, 1971 both the accused came to take delivery of the stitched clothes and on that occasion, the other accused placed a further order for a terelene pant and two cotton pants and for those P.W.1 charged Rs. 86. Then the other accused handed over to P. W. 1 four or five postal orders and asked him to encash them through the bank. Then on 16th December, 1971, both this appellant and the other accused went to P.W.1's shop for the purpose of taking delivery of the stitched clothes and on that occasion, the other accused handed over four or five more postal orders to P.W.1 and when P.W.1 asked where from he got them, the other accused stated that one of his relatives was in the customs house and he had given the same to him. P.W.1 who had his account in the Indian Bank situated at Wallajah Road handed in those postal orders to his Bank for the purpose of encashing the amount and crediting the same in his account. But four or five days later, the postal orders were returned on the ground that there were no signatures. Four or five days thereafter when the appellant¡ and the other accused came to his shop, P.W.1 told them that the Bank had returned the postal orders and handed over those postal orders to the other accused. M.Os. 1 to 3 are those postal orders. The other accused then said that he would sign those postal ‘ orders and hand them over to him. The other accused, according to P.W.1 then handed over M.Os. 1 to 3 to this appellant and this appellant then signed on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3 and below his signatures, P.W.1 affixed his signatures. The appellant and the other accused after asking P.W.1 to intimate to them when the postal orders are encashed and after this appellant had written his address in the order book Exhibit P-3, went away. The three postal orders were duly encashed through the bank and the amount was credited into P.W.1's account and an intimation Exhibit P-4 was received by Mm to the effect that the sum of Rs. 421-65 had been credited into his account. Subsequently four or five days later, the appellant and the other accused came to P.W.1's shop and he told them that the postal orders had been encashed and after taking the amount due to him from out of the amount realised from the postal orders, he handed over the balance to the appellant and the other accused. Meanwhile P.W.2 received a letter Exhibit P-14 from his relative Abdul Quadir and found from it that Abdul Quadir had enclosed three postal orders with that letter. But he found no postal orders inside the envelop. He there upon contacted P.W.4 the Postman and complained to him that the postal orders said to have been enclosed with the letter were missing. P.W.4 advised him to lodge a complaint with the Post Master. P.W.2 then wrote a letter to Abdul Quadir and asked him to furnish the numbers of the postal orders, and he then preferred the complaint Exhibit P-13 to the then Post-Master P.W.5 on 13th November, 1971. P.W.4 advised him to lodge a complaint with the Post Master. P.W.2 then wrote a letter to Abdul Quadir and asked him to furnish the numbers of the postal orders, and he then preferred the complaint Exhibit P-13 to the then Post-Master P.W.5 on 13th November, 1971. Subsequently P.W.2 received a letter Exhibit P-15 from Abdul Quadir in which Abdul Quadir furnished the numbers of the postal orders which he had sent in his earlier letter. It may be noted that in M.Os. 1 to 3 the payee's name has been written as Rahman Baig (P.W.2). P.W.3, the then Senior Superintendent of Post-Offices, City Central Division on receipt of the complaint Exhibit P-15 sent by P.W.2 issued circulars to all the post offices in the city with reference to the complaint made by P.W.2. His enquiry revealed that the amount of the postal orders had been paid into the Indian Bank by the Mount Road Post: Office. P.W.3 then wrote a letter Exhibit P-16 on 24th January, 1972 to P.W.2 stating that the British Postal Orders under reference had been encashed at the Mount Road Post Office on 4th January, 1972 duly, signed by Rahman Baig and that the amount had been paid to the credit of Ramadoss Rao (P.W.1). P.W.2 thereupon sent a reply, Exhibit P-17 to on 1st February, 1972 stating’ that he never signed the postal orders and he-requested the postal authorities to apprehend’ the culprit and return the amount to him. P.W.6 the Inspector of Post Offices, City Sub-Division was asked by P.W.3 to enquire into the matter and he collected M.Os. 1 to. 3 from the Mount Road Post Office and then made enquiries at the Indian Bank. Then he contacted P.W.1 who informed him that some of the customers had given him postal orders in payment towards the charges for stitching clothes; but that he could not tell P.W.6 who was the customer who actually gave him these postal orders. P.W.6 then recorded a statement Exhibit P-28 from P.W.1 and then contacted P.W.2 who asserted that he did not affix his signatures on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3. P.W.6 recorded the statement Exhibit P-19 from P.W.2. P.W.6 then recorded a statement Exhibit P-28 from P.W.1 and then contacted P.W.2 who asserted that he did not affix his signatures on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3. P.W.6 recorded the statement Exhibit P-19 from P.W.2. Then P.W.6 met P.W.1 and told him that the amount wrongly credited in his account will have to be returned to the postal department and P.W.1 thereupon gave a declaration Exhibit P-7 stating that he would“pay the amount. P.W.6 then confronted P.Ws. 1 and 2 with each other and both of them stated that they did not know each other. Then P.W.3 sent a complaint Exhibit P-23 on 20th June, 1972 to the Commissioner of Police. P.W.13 on receipt of Exhibit P-23 registered a case and took up the investigation and arrested P.W.1 on 31st August, 1972 and on the information furnished by P.W.1 he arrested the appellant on 23rd September, 1972 and on the information furnished by the appellant, the other accused was arrested at Madras. Then the VI Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras after observing all the formalities and after giving sufficient time for reflection duly recorded the confession statement Exhibit P-9 of P. W. 1. P. W. 12, who was then the Eighth Presidency Magistrate. George Town questioned P.W.1 with regard to the confessional statement and he tendered conditional pardon to P.W.1. P.W.13 obtained from P.W.1, Exhibit P-10 series containing his specimen signatures and he obtained Exhibit P-11 series from P.W.1 in which P.W.1 was asked to write the name ‘Rahman Baig’. From P.W.2, P.W.13 obtained his specimen signatures, Exhibit P-21 series and from the other accused P.W.13 obtained his specimen signatures Exhibit P-56 series. Then this appellant was also asked to write the name ‘Rahman Baig’ in Exhibit P-55 series. These documents along with M.Os. 1 to 3 were sent to P.W.10, Assistant Director, Documents, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science & Chemical Laboratory. On perusing the -signatures purporting to be those of Rahman Baig in M.Os. 1 to 3 with the appellants -writings in Exhibit P-55 series P.W.10 was of the opinion that the signatures purporting to be those of Rahman Baig in M.Os. 1 to 3 were written by the appellant. 3. The appellant refuted all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 4. 1 to 3 with the appellants -writings in Exhibit P-55 series P.W.10 was of the opinion that the signatures purporting to be those of Rahman Baig in M.Os. 1 to 3 were written by the appellant. 3. The appellant refuted all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 4. The brief resume of the evidence given above, would show that the convictions of the appellant of offences under three counts of section 467, Indian Penal Code, rest; (1) on the testimony of P.W.1, the approver; (2) on the opinion of the handwriting expert to which I have already referred; and (3) on the learned Judge himself comparing the writing of the appellant with the purported signature of Rahman Baig in M.Os. 1 to 3 and forming his own opinion regarding it. The first point I have to consider is whether P.W.1 is a truthful witness. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab it has been pointed out that the test of reliability has to be satisfied by an approver all the more before the question of corroboration of his evidence is considered. Therefore, I shall now proceed to find out whether P.W.I satisfies that test of reliability and then proceed to consider whether there is corroboration of his evidence. The first aspect that strikes one while assessing the testimony of P.W.1 is the fact that P.W.1 had given a statement Exhibit P-28 to the Postal Inspector P.W.6 asserting that normally he was not in the habit of receiving British Postal Orders; but very rarely Ceylonese or foreigners tender British Postal Orders in lieu of cash towards payment for clothes stitched in his shop and after consulting the Indian Bank and on their assurance he accepted the British Postal Orders which were for Rs. 350 or above but that he did not remember the customer who gave those postal orders or the name of that customer. Subsequently also, when he was questioned by P.W.6 on. 2nd February, 1972 he asserted that he did not member the person who gave these postal orders M.Os. 1 to 3. When such a witness subsequently comes forward and asserts that it was this appellant who actually signed on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3 in his presence, it is not possible for the Court to say which of the two statements which are contradictory, is true. 1 to 3. When such a witness subsequently comes forward and asserts that it was this appellant who actually signed on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3 in his presence, it is not possible for the Court to say which of the two statements which are contradictory, is true. That apart even a cursory reading of the testimony of P.W.1 would show that he is a witness who has no regard for truth. He has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot write English letters in a chain or even separately and yet in Exhibit P-11 he has written the name of Rahman Baig in English but that he wrote so in the way in which the Inspector showed him. Many of his statements in his testimony were contradictory to what he had stated under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and those statements which he had made under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, which are contradictory to his evidence in Court, have been marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-4. Those statements would themselves show what scant regard P.W.1 has for truth. It must be noted that he has asserted in his evidence that he knew both the appellant and the other accused since 1969 and these persons used to come to his shop often and place orders with him and also introduce customers to him and would visit his shop between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. But to the Postal Inspector’ whoexamined him, he has asserted that he did not know the customer who handed over M. Os. 1 to 3 to him or that customer's name. But later on, after he was arrested and questioned by the police, he implicated this appellant as the person who signed the name Rahman Baig on the reverse of M. Os. 1 to 3. His evidence therefore does not satisfy the test of reliability. Then there is the fact that P. W. 1 was placed in a situation where even if he had been the culprit, he would fasten the blame on somebody else in order to save his own skin. The evidence of such a witness placed in such a circumstance cannot easily be believed unless it satisfies fully the test of reliability and is corroborated by other evidence. The evidence of such a witness placed in such a circumstance cannot easily be believed unless it satisfies fully the test of reliability and is corroborated by other evidence. The only piece of evidence on which the prosecution relies for the purpose of affording corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1 is the opinion of the handwriting expert. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the opinion of a handwriting expert is not substantive evidence and it is for the Court to consider such evidence and see whether it can be accepted. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that besides the opinion of the handwriting expert, we have also the fact that the learned Judge himself has compared the handwritings of the appellant with the purported signatures of Rahman Baig on the reverse of M. Os. 1 to 3 and satisfied himself that both the handwritings resembled. No doubt, the Court is entitled to make such a comparison; but it is not for the purpose forming its own conclusion as an expert; but for the purpose of assessing the opinion given by the expert, as has been held in a number of decisions by the Supreme Court. The opinion of the handwriting expert, if it is fortified by intrinsic evidence in the writings or by any other piece of extrinsic evidence can certainly be accepted by the Court. In this case, I am deprived of such intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Therefore, it is not safe to base a conviction of the appellant merely on the strength of the opinion given by the hand writing expert especially when the testimony of P.W.1, the approver has not satisfied the test of reliability and especially when there are other circumstances which would render doubtful the prosecution case. One such factor is the fact that this appellant did not owe any money to P.W.1 at the time when these postal orders were delivered to P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 clearly proves this fact. It was the other accused who owed money to P.W.1 towards stitching charges for the clothes. Therefore this appellant had no interest in helping P.W.1 to get the postal orders encashed unless his intimacy with the first accused was such that he wanted to help the first accused in paying his dues to P.W.1, by encashing these postal orders which were undoubtedly stolen. Therefore this appellant had no interest in helping P.W.1 to get the postal orders encashed unless his intimacy with the first accused was such that he wanted to help the first accused in paying his dues to P.W.1, by encashing these postal orders which were undoubtedly stolen. It might also be noticed that P.W.1 was interested in getting these postal orders encashed for, the other accused owed him money and the other accused was also interested in getting the postal orders encashed because he owed money to P.W.1. In these circumstances, the possibility of either Exhibit A-1 or P.W.1 having been the persons who forged Rahman Baig's signature on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3 has to be completely negatived by the evidence. The handwriting expert does not rule out the possibility of either P.W.1 or Exhibit A-1 having put the forged signatures. Even though he compared the writings of P.W.1 with the disputed signatures on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3, he would not venture any opinion regarding it in his testimony. Therefore, merely on the strength of the opinion of the handwriting expert that the purported signature of Rahman Baig on the reverse of M.Os. 1 to 3 resembles the signature of the appellant in Exhibit P-55 series, I cannot maintain the conviction of the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may arise in this case and so many doubts do arise in this case, the benefit of which should certainly be given to the appellant. I therefore allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant of offences under three counts of section 467, Indian Penal Code and the sentences meted out to him and acquit him of those offences.