Venkataswami, J.- This is an appeal, under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the State, directed against the judgment of acquittal made by the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1965, on 13th December, 1965. The charges against the accused,. D.C. Nanjappa, were that between 24th December, 1962 and 26th December, 1962, at Dadighatta Village of Channarayapatna Taluk, he forged a postal acknowledgment addressed to Chikkegowda by affixing his left thumb impression thereon purporting to be the left thumb impression of Megalamane Chikkegowda with intent to make it appear that the insured cover No. 26 of Byculla Post Office had been duly delivered to the addressee. In respect of this act, he was charged with an offence made punishable under section 467, Indian Penal Code. The second charge was that in respect of the above said insured cover of the value of Rs. 60, he committed an offence of criminal breach of trust made punishable under section 409, Indian Penal Code. The facts as unfolded by the prosecution are as follows: — the accused was a primary school teacher in Dadighatta Village of Channarayapatna Taluk. He was also a branch Post Master at Dadighatta. The accused was transferred from Arasikere to Dadighatta Village on 4th September, 1962. He had been attending to the duties of the branch Post Master since that date. One Chikkegowda, who is a native of Dadighatta Village, and who at the relevant point of time was earning his livelihood as a jutka driver or a mill worker in Bombay, had sent a sum of Rs. 60 on 20th December, 1962 through an insured cover addressed to his father Magalamane Chikkegowda, a resident of Dadighatta Village. The said insured cover was received at Dadighatta Village by the accused, who was the Post Master at that time. He, instead of arranging for the delivery of the insured c over to Megalamane Chikkegowda to whom it was addressed, affixed his own thumb impression on the acknowledgment of the insured cover and by way of attestation to the thumb impression, he himself identified in his own handwriting. Thereafter, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 60, which represented the remittance that was made by Chikkegowda from Byculla Post Office. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 60, which represented the remittance that was made by Chikkegowda from Byculla Post Office. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 (R. M. Haik), P.W. 2 (Boman A. Ghadiali) and P.W. 3. (Bhaskar) are the Postal employees of the Byculla Post Office at Bombay. They have spoken to the fact of having received the insured cover and, after following the procedure required by the Departmental Rules and instructions, despatched it to the Sub-Post Office at Shravanabelagola within whose jurisdiction Dadighatta Village is situate. They have also spoken to the procedure relating to the receipt and despatch of insured covers. The procedure consists of weighing, making necessary entries and affixing of a number slip on the cover. They have also stated that the entire insured cover is put into a protecting cover addressed to the Post Master of the area through which it would be delivered to the addressee. Both the insured cover and the protecting cover would be weighed and the weight entered so that it may be checked up at the receiving Post Office for the purpose of verifying whether or not there has been pilferage or tampering. As to the despatch of the insured cover on 20th December, 1962, P.W. 3 Bhaskar, a Clerk of the despatching section of the Byculla Post Office has spoken. As regards the receipt of the insured cover at Channarayapatna Post Office, P.W. 4 (M.D. Ramaswamy) and P.W. 5 (M. Srikantasastry) have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 4 has stated that, on 22nd December, 1962 he was the Registration Clerk at Channarayapatna Post Office, and that he had received the insured cover (Exhibit P-1) from Shravanabelagola Post Office. After making the necessary entry he gave the sad cover to the Post Master P.W. 5. The Post Master after verifying the weight, and the number, opened the protecting cover and weighed the insured cover for ascertaining its weight, and thus verifying as to its correctness. The following day was a Sunday. So the said insured cover, which was in safe custody during the previous day, was taken out and after adopting the procedure regarding the relevant entries to be made, it was despatched to Dadighatta in a sealed bag. It is also stated that the branch Post Master at Dadighatta was required to send a daily account. So the said insured cover, which was in safe custody during the previous day, was taken out and after adopting the procedure regarding the relevant entries to be made, it was despatched to Dadighatta in a sealed bag. It is also stated that the branch Post Master at Dadighatta was required to send a daily account. The daily account relating to 26th December, 1962 has been marked as Exhibit P. 10. As regards the insured cover No. 26 in question, the relevant entry in the daily account is noted as Exhibit P-10 (d). The relevant acknowledgment, in proof of the delivery of the insured cover, was sent to the Channarayapatna Post Office on 26th December, 1962. P.W. 4 has further stated that the said acknowledgment was despatched to the Post Office at Bombay and that it bears the postal seals of the Dadhigatta Post Office dated 26th December, 1962. The reason for having received this insured cover through the Shravanabalagola Post Office is stated to be that at the relevant time, the Post Office at Shravanabalagola was a Sub-Office. P.W. 5 (M. Srikantasastry) was the Sub-Post Master at Channarayapatna on 22nd December, 1962. He corroborated the evidence of P,W. 4, the registration clerk of that Post Office. P.W. 5 has further stated that there was an entry in Exhibit P-12, which is the branch office journal maintained at Dadighatta Post Office. As regards the insured cover in question, there is an entry in that journal. Exhibit P-12 (a), as to its receipt and delivery on 4th December, 1962 and 26th December, 1962 respectively. He has also spoken to the fact of those entries having been made by the accused. He has corroborated P.W. 4 as to the receipt and despatch of the insured cover and the relevant postal acknowledgment for delivery. He lias also spoken to the fact of the Entry Exhibit P-13’(d)‘, relating to this insured cover found in Exhibit P-13, which is a postman’s book, containing the details of the articles entrusted to the postman on each day. He has stated that the said entry is in the handwriting of the accused. It is to be mentioned that the learned Sessions Judge has made a note to the effect that this witness was shivering in the witness box whenever a searching question was put to him. P.W. 7 (D. Chikkegowda) is the postman at Dadighatta. He has stated that the said entry is in the handwriting of the accused. It is to be mentioned that the learned Sessions Judge has made a note to the effect that this witness was shivering in the witness box whenever a searching question was put to him. P.W. 7 (D. Chikkegowda) is the postman at Dadighatta. .He has spoken to the fact that he had not served any intimation slip to Megalamane Chikkegowda (P.W. 8), in regard to the concerned insured article, as none was entrusted to him. He has also spoken to the fact of the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the Inspector of Post Offices, in regard to the acts committed by him. P.W. 8 is Megalamane Chikkegowda, to whom the insured cover had to be delivered. He has spoken to the fact that he came to know of the despatch of money by his son P.W. 10 (Chikkegowda) from. Bombay, through one Thimmegowda, who was not examined in the case. On his enquiry at the Post Office, he was told by the Post Master — Accused that no amount had been received. The witness is illiterate and does not know how to sign. Since he felt suspicious, he sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Post Offices at Mysore, for an enquiry. Thereafter, P.W. 11 K. Kalaiah, the Postal Inspector, who was directed by the Superintendent of Post Offices by a telegram, Exhibit, P-24, came to Dadighatta to enquire into the complaint. He has also spoken to the fact of the making of the extra judicial confession(Exhibit P-25) by the accused on 14th January, 1963. P.W. 10 (Chikke Gowda) is the person who sent the insured cover to his father, P.W. 8, from Bombay. He has spoken to the fact of the despatch of money through the insured cover, Exhibit P-1. Since he did not know how to write, he got the address on that envelope written by somebody at the Post Office, as also a chit in the form of a communication to his father as to the purpose to which the sum of Rs. 60 should be put. He has also spoken to the fact of having received the postal acknowledgment Exhibit P-2 a week later, containing the left thumb impression. 60 should be put. He has also spoken to the fact of having received the postal acknowledgment Exhibit P-2 a week later, containing the left thumb impression. Since he did not receive any reply from his father, although he wrote about the despatch of the money, he sent word through one Thimme Gowda, who was also a jutka driver at Bombay. About 15 days later, he received a post card intimating him that the money had not been received. Thereafter, he went to the Post Office. He appears to have gone to a person by name Madhava Rao and mentioned the matter to him. On his instructions he delivered Exhibit P-2 at the Post Office at Byculla. P.W. 11 (K. Kalaiah) is the Postal Inspector who lodged the complaint, Exhibit P-27 with the Police at Channarayapatna. He has spoken to the fact of having received the telegraphic intimation from the Superintendent of Post Offices on 11th January, 1963. He arrived at Dadighatta and after looking into the accounts and other matter relating to his duties as Inspector, he enquired of the accused as to the manner of disposal of the Insured Cover No. 26 received from Byculla Post Office for Rs. 60. He has spoken to the admission of guilt by the accused. He thought it fit to have this extra-judicial confession recorded in a panchanama in the presence of respectable people of the village. Thereafter, the extra judicial confession Exhibit P-25 came to be recorded by the accused in his own handwriting and attested by several witnesses in that regard. After the confession was written and read out, the accused was interrogated about the insured cover, whereupon, he seems to have brought the insured cover along with the currency notes of Rs. 60 (in fives). It was also noticed that there was a chit inside the cover which reads “Father, this amount may be paid to Kunnayyana Karia of Byadrahalli and take back the bond executed.” The insured cover is Exhibit P-1 and the chit is Exhibit P-23. P.W. 11 has spoken to the fact that Exhibit P-1, the insured cover, was shown to all the persons who were present there, and of having credited the sum of Rs. 60 in the Post Office. Thereafter, he complained to the police under Exhibit P-27. He has also separately made a report to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. P.W. 11 has spoken to the fact that Exhibit P-1, the insured cover, was shown to all the persons who were present there, and of having credited the sum of Rs. 60 in the Post Office. Thereafter, he complained to the police under Exhibit P-27. He has also separately made a report to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. P.W. 12 (Lakke Gowda), P.W. 13 (Dr. Krishna Murthy) and P.W. 14 (Arase Gowda) are the witnesses who have attested the extrajudicial confession Exhibit P-25, written and read out by the-accused. They have all clearly stated that there was no threat or inducement held out either by P.W. 11 or any of them. They are all positive that the statement made by the accused in Exhibit P-25 was voluntary. They have also referred to the circumstances in which further writing came to be done on Exhibit P-25 after their attestation of the said document. P.W. 6 (S.L. Bhoj) and P.W. 19 (S.M. Maka) are the Finger Print Expert and the Handwriting Expert respectively. They have been examined to prove that the thumb impression on Exhibit P-2 and the attestation thereon, were those of the accused himself, and not of P.W. 8 or that of the attesting witness named therein. One Ranganatha Rao, a Sorting Postman (P.W. 9) has clearly stated that he was entrusted with the documents Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 to be handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Channarayapatna, on 21st February, 1963. Since the Sub-Inspector of Police, was for some reason, unable to receive the documents on that day, and in view of the fact that he was not available on the succeeding days, the documents were delivered to him on 2nd March, 1963. On receiving the complaint of K. Kaliah (P.W. 11), S.R. Mudugerappa (P.W. 20), the Sub-Inspector of Police, commenced the investigation on 8th February, 1963. After necessary investigation, he placed the charge-sheet before the Munsiff-Magistrate at Holenarasipur. The accused, after the enquiry by the learned Magistrate under section 207-B Criminal Procedure Code, was committed to take his trial before the Court of Session at Hassan. The learned Sessions Judge, after a detailed and rather lengthy discussion of the evidence in the case, acquitted the accused. Almost every link in the chain of the prosecution evidence has been found to be weak by the learned trial Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, after a detailed and rather lengthy discussion of the evidence in the case, acquitted the accused. Almost every link in the chain of the prosecution evidence has been found to be weak by the learned trial Judge. He has disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 10, Chikka Gowda, as regards his means to be able to send a sum of Rs. 60 from Bombay as stated by him. He has raised a serious doubt as to the Very despatch of Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2, the insured cover and the relevant acknowledgment respectively. As regards the date seal found on Exhibit P-2, he has merely dismissed it as not of much importance, because such dates could be adjusted on the stamp used for the purpose in post offices. He has made much of the non-examination of the persons who wrote the address on Exhibit P-2. He has come to the conclusion that the address on Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 had been written by one and the same hand. Nextly, after addressing himself to the question whether Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-1 reached Dadighatta on 24th December, 1962, he has further come to the conclusion that it was highly doubtful that the insured cover and the relevant acknowledgment left the post office at Channarayapatna in the process of being sent to Dadighatta Post Office. In this context, he has made much of the ‘shivering ‘experienced by P.W. 5, the Post Master of Channarayapatna, while he was in the witness box. The learned trial Judge further disbelieves the entry made in Exhibit P-13, the postman’s book, relating to Exhibit P-1, the insured article in question. He has also disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 7 the postman, who is in charge of Exhibit P-13. On this aspect of the matter, the learned Judge has further come to the conclusion that Exhibit P-2, the forged acknowledgment, could not be Said to be the identical acknowledgment form that reached Dadighatta Post Office along with the insured article. With reference to the production of Exhibit P-2, as spoken to by P.W 7, the postman, he has come to the conclusion that it was highly improbable that the accused could keep Exhibit P-2, as also Exhibit P-1, and Exhibit P-23, after having misappropriated the money, only to meekly produce them with a view to create evidence against himself. With reference to the production of Exhibit P-2, as spoken to by P.W 7, the postman, he has come to the conclusion that it was highly improbable that the accused could keep Exhibit P-2, as also Exhibit P-1, and Exhibit P-23, after having misappropriated the money, only to meekly produce them with a view to create evidence against himself. At this stage, we may mention that except for P.W. 7 no other witness has stated about the production of Exhibit P-2, and it has to be remembered that there were several persons present when the accused read out his confession. As regards Exhibit P-25, the extra judicial confession the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that it was hit by the provisions of both sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also concludes that having regard to the statement of P.W. 11 the Postal Inspector, that he had powers to investigate into offences committed by the subordinates, he (P.W. 11) was a person more or less akin to a Police Officer, and as such any confession made to him would be inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act. He has also found that having regard to the circumstances surrounding the writing of Exhibit P-25, and the official relationship between P.W. 11 and the accused, the said confession must have been the result of an inducement held out by the authorities concerned. He has stated that it was patent from Exhibit P-25 that the accused must have at least been promised that he would be exonerated from all responsibility. In this context he has also referred to the statement of the accused in his examination under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused has stated therein that his confession statement was the result of threats, and harassment. From the conduct of P.W. 11 that he wanted a mahazar to be drawn up with regard to the confession made by the accused., the learned Judge concludes that the accused must have been threatened. He is further of the opinion that the panchayatdars might not have been present there when the confession was recorded. He has also-adverted to the absence of reference to Exhibit P-23, the chit in the confession written up by the accused. He is further of the opinion that the panchayatdars might not have been present there when the confession was recorded. He has also-adverted to the absence of reference to Exhibit P-23, the chit in the confession written up by the accused. For all these reasons, he came to the conclusion that the confession Exhibit P-25 was inadmissible in evidence, or at any rate, it would be irrelevant as it had been extracted by threats or inducement. He has further come to the conclusion that Exhibit P-23 was a got up document. As regards Exhibit P-2 the forged postal acknowledgment, it is held that it could not have come from proper custody. The learned Judge has also felt that there was an omission on the side of the prosecution to establish a link as to how Exhibit P-2 came to be in the hands of the person who inquire into the matter. Proceeding further, he has opined that P.W. 11 must have got the acknowledgment Exhibit P-2 into his possession by some means other than by despatch from Byculla Post Office, to which P.W. 10, Chikke Gowda, is said to have handed over the said document with his complaint. Much in the same strain, the learned Judge also entertains serious doubts as to the very telegram Exhibit P-24 sent by the Superintendent of Post Offices on 11th January, 1963. For all these reasons, it is concluded by the learned Judge that Exhibit P-2, the forged acknowledgment was a document got up for the occasion. Indeed, he goes on to observe that the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused that the thumb impression and the handwriting on Exhibit P-2 might have been surreptitiously obtained by the Investigating Officer, could not be said to be farfetched. He has also criticised the procedure of the Police Officer in securing the exempler writings and prints for the purpose of comparison and characterises the same as reprehensible. The evidence of the two experts P.Ws. 6 and 19 has not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, and he has observed that it would be unsafe to act on their opinion. The evidence of the two experts P.Ws. 6 and 19 has not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, and he has observed that it would be unsafe to act on their opinion. Finally, he has come to the conclusion that the entire prosecution was the result of an attempt on the part of P.W. 11 to wreak vengeance against the accused, who, according to the learned Judge, was responsible for the reversion of the Inspector to the post of a Post Master. As a result of the discussion the accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by this judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal. Sri G.M. Rego, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, took us through the entire record. We are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal cannot be upheld. It is fairly well established that an appeal from acquittal need not be treated differently from an appeal from conviction, and if in an appeal it is found that the acquittal is not justified by the evidence on record, the High Court can set aside the order of acquittal without coming to the conclusion that there were compelling reasons for doing so. Sri Deyaraj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the acquitted respondent, submits that it would be unsafe to act upon Exhibit P-2, the relevant forged postal acknowledgment, in the circumstances set out in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment in question. The criticism levelled against Exhibit P-2, by the learned Judge is that it must have been got up surreptitiously by the investigating Officer, since the evidence adduced does not disclose as to how it came to be in the hands of the person who enquired into the matter after it was delivered in the Byculla Post Office. On this basis, the learned Judge concluded that the acknowledgment Exhibit P-2 could not be the one which was received on the Dadighatta Post Office. In our view, there is no basis for this conclusion. We have examined Exhibit P-2 carefully and all the postal seals and writings thereon. This document has also been spoken to by various witnesses who were most concerned with it. It also contains the relevant postal seals and dates and attestation thereon. As regards the attestation and. In our view, there is no basis for this conclusion. We have examined Exhibit P-2 carefully and all the postal seals and writings thereon. This document has also been spoken to by various witnesses who were most concerned with it. It also contains the relevant postal seals and dates and attestation thereon. As regards the attestation and. the thumb impression found on it the learned Sessions Judge should have been slow in coming to the conclusion that they must have been obtained by the Investigating Officer. To say the least, there is absolutely no basis in fact for this aspersion cast on the investigating agency. There cannot be any doubt that Exhibit P-2 was delivered at the Post Office at Bombay by P.W. 10. Though P.W. 7 states in his evidence that Exhibit P-2 was one of the documents produced by the accused on 14th January, 1963, when he made the extra-judicial confession, there is no other evidence on record indicative of this fact. Hence, the statement of P.W. 7 as regards the production of Exhibit P-2 does not appear to be a correct one. On the other hand, it is clear that the Police came to be in possession of Exhibit P-2 only on 2nd March, 1963 as spoken to by P.W. 9. Further having regard to the evidence of P.W. 10, Exhibit P-2 must have been delivered at the Post Office at Bombay sometime subsequent to 14th January, 1963. A question then would naturally arise as to how the matter was set in motion, even before the complaint from P.W. 10 was lodged at Bombay? In our view, there does not appear to be any difficulty in this regard having regard to the fact that P.W. 8, Megalamane Chikkegowda, himself, having come to know that some money had been sent to him by his son from Bombay, and after conquiring with the Post Master in question, sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Post Offices, requesting for an enquiry. Hence, we are of the view that the conclusions of the trial Court in relation to Exhibit P-2 cannot be sustained. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the State is that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in rejecting the evidence relating to the extra judicial confession, Exhibit P-25, on the basis of the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the State is that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in rejecting the evidence relating to the extra judicial confession, Exhibit P-25, on the basis of the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. As stated earlier, the evidence has been held to be inadmissible on the ground that the Postal Inspector had powers to investigate into the offence committed by the subordinate. Beyond the statement of P.W. 11 that he had power to investigate into the offences committed by the subordinates, no other material has been placed on record to show that his powers in that connection Were analogous to a Police Officer. As we understand that statement, it is clear that what the witness was referring to was his authority to investigate into departmental offences and irregularities committed by the subordinates in the postal department. It would not mean that he was exercising the same powers as a Police Officer in charge of a station in the context of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. In any event, such powers are exercisable only when they are conferred by law or rules lawfully made by the appropriate Legislature. No law or rule in this regard has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent. It is also well settled that mere power to investigate into offences committed by subordinate would not necessarily attract the bar as to the admissibility of confessions, enacted under section 25 of the Evidence Act. In this connection, our attention has been invited to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in The State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram1, and the relevant passage runs thus; (at page 280, Para. 12). “We are therefore of opinion that the duties of the Customs Officers are very much different from those of the Police Officers and that their possessing certain powers, which may have similarity with those of police officers, for the purpose of detecting the smuggling of goods and the persons responsible for it, would not make them police officers.” Again at page 281, Their Lordships have observed thus: "Customs Officers, can even if the respondent’s contention be accepted, be considered to be police officers only when they are exercising the limited powers which are similar to the powers of the police officers. This is clear from the observations in the cases relied upon on behalf of the respondent." In the light of the above enunciation, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the statement Exhibit P-25 was inadmissible in evidence is clearly erroneous. The next question relates to the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the statement Exhibit P-25 would become irrelevant in view of the provisions of section 24 of the Evidence Act. Before adverting to this aspect of the case, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Pyare Lal Bhargava State of Rajasthan,1 at page 1095. It runs this: "......Section 24 of the Evidence Act lays down that a confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant in criminal proceedings under certain circumstances. Under that section a confessions would be irrelevant if the following conditions were satisfied; (1) it should appear to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise; (2) the said threat, inducement of promise must have reference to the charge against the accused person; (3) it shall proceed from a p3rson in authority; and (4) the Court shall be of the opinion that the said inducement, threat or promise is sufficient to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable in supposing that he would gain an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. The crucial word in the first ingredient is the expression "appears". The appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is "seems". It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. Section 3 of the Evidence Act says: "A fact is said to be ‘proved’ when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances, of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Therefore, the test of proof is that there is such a high degree or probability that a prudent man would act on. the assumption that the thing is true. But under section 24 of the Evidence Act such a stringent rule is waived but a lesser degree of assurance is laid down as the criterion. Therefore, the test of proof is that there is such a high degree or probability that a prudent man would act on. the assumption that the thing is true. But under section 24 of the Evidence Act such a stringent rule is waived but a lesser degree of assurance is laid down as the criterion. The standard of a prudent man is not completely displaced, but the stringent rule of proof is relaxed. Even so, the laxity of proof permitted does not warrant a Court’s opinion based on pure surmise. A prima facie opinion based on the evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the standard laid down. To put it in other words, on the evidence and the circumstances in a particular case it may appear to the Court that there was a threat, inducement or promise, though the said fact is not strictly proved. This deviation from the strict standards of proof has been designedly accepted by the Legislature with a view to exclude forced or induced confessions which sometimes are exorted and put in when there is a lack of direct evidence. It is not possible or advisable to lay down an inflexible standard for guidance of Courts, for in the ultimate analysis it is the Court which is called upon to exclude a confession by holding in the circumstances of a particular case that the confession was not made voluntarily", (italicizing is ours). Keeping in view of the above enunciation, we shall proceed to examine the circumstances surrounding the statement made by the accused in Exhibit P-25. The learned Sessions Judge has drawn an inference in favour of the accused on the mere circumstance that P.W. 11, the Inspector of Post Officers, thought fit to prepare a mahazar of the said statement. He also draws certain conclusions from the manner in which the document has been written by the accused, and certain omissions there-in relating to Exhibit P-23. In our iew, none of these circumstances taken singly or collectively would warrant an inference that the accused was induced or the eatened to make the statement. He also draws certain conclusions from the manner in which the document has been written by the accused, and certain omissions there-in relating to Exhibit P-23. In our iew, none of these circumstances taken singly or collectively would warrant an inference that the accused was induced or the eatened to make the statement. The oral evidence in that regard is that the Inspector of Post Offices, P.W. 11, arrived at Dadighatta at about 11-30 A.M. After making the necessary inspection of the articles in stock in the Post Office, he enquired of the accused about the disposal of the insured cover No. 26 received from the Byculla Post Office. On coming to know from the accused as to the fact of that insured cover and the part played by the accused therein, he thought it fit to send for panchayatdars. Without much further delay, the panchayatdars were sent for and the accused was asked in their presence about what he said to the Inspector earlier. If really he was induced by threat or harassment to make the statement in question, the accused should have chosen that occasion to deny the acts attributed to him. Further, all the witnesses, about whose integrity and trustworthiness nothing has been suggested to the contrary have uniformly denied the suggestion that any promise or inducement was held out by P.W. 11, the Inspector of Post Offices Furthermore, Exhibit P-25 does not appear to have been written up at the dictation of anybody much less that of P.W. 11. If really any threat or inducement was held out by P.W. 11 during his earlier meeting with the accused in the Post Office on the same day, as inferred by the learned trial Judge, nothing prevented the accused from making a reference to it in some manner in his statement. It is also significant that Exhibit P-1 was produced by the accused after this extra-judicial confession on a further interrogation by the Inspector. If really inducement had been held out by P.W. 11 during their earlier meeting on the same day, it is highly improbable that the accused would not have been asked about Exhibit P-1 and the money and caused the production of them even before the writing up of Exhibit P-25. If really inducement had been held out by P.W. 11 during their earlier meeting on the same day, it is highly improbable that the accused would not have been asked about Exhibit P-1 and the money and caused the production of them even before the writing up of Exhibit P-25. As regards the omission to mention Exhibit P-23, the chit enclosed by P.W. 10 in the insured cover it may have to be noted that it appears to have been produced after Exhibit P-25 was written up. More ever, having regard to the circumstances attending on the production of Exhibit P-1 and the money, it is possible that the existence of Exhibit P-23 was not known toany ore at that time. They must have come to know about the existence of Exhibit P-23 only after Exhibit P-25 was completed. Allthe witnesses whose evidence has not been impeached in any serious manner, have uniformly spoken to the fact that they came to know of the existence of the chit during the conclusion of the panchayathi. The witnesses have also spoken to the fact that after they signed, the accused added some sort of a post-script to the said document This circumstance by itself does not throw any doubt as to the manner and circumstances in which Exhibit P-25 came to be written up. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge, that the extra-judicial confession would become irrelevant or inadmissible in the light of the provisions of section. 24 of the Evidence Act. We are aware that in a sense this confession has been retracted by the accused during he trial But, ample corroboration is forthcoming in the oral and documentary evidence produced, on behalf of the prosecution. The production of Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-23 and the payment of Rs. 60 by the accused have been amply corroborated in the documentary evidence. The fact that Exhibit P-1 was the insured cover’ in question, is proved by the evidence of various Postal Officials, who were concerned with its registration, despatch and delivery. In our view, the production of Exhibit P-1, apart from any other documentary evidence, is a very strong incriminating circumstances against the accused. The fact that Exhibit P-1 was the insured cover’ in question, is proved by the evidence of various Postal Officials, who were concerned with its registration, despatch and delivery. In our view, the production of Exhibit P-1, apart from any other documentary evidence, is a very strong incriminating circumstances against the accused. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that Exhibit P-25, the,extra-judicial confession made by the accused, is not hit by section 25, nor is it irrelevant in the light of the provisions of section 24 of the Evidence Act. This document is not only relevant, but has been proved by unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. No other point is argued at the Bar in support of several other conclusions arrived at by the learned, trial Judge. But, to make out the charge of forgery in regard to Exhibit P-2, it has to be shown that the thumb impression and the attestation thereof have been forged by the accused. In this connection, two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. They are P.Ws. 6 and 19, who are Finger Punt and Handwriting Experts respectively. The learned Judge has thought it unsafe to act upon the opinion furnished by these experts. We are rot quite satisfied with the reasons adduced in support of the said conclusion. Both the Handwriting Expert and the Finger Print Expert are of the opinion that the thumb impression was made by the accused himself, and the attestation was also in his handwriting. It is true that the evidence of Experts of this character is in the nature of opinion evidence and is not conclusive, in the absence of other corroborating circumstances. The entries in Exhibit P-10 and Exhibit P-12 relating to the daily accounts and journals, sent by the accused as the Postmaster at Dadighatta, clearly show that the accused was trying to suppress the fact of the insured cover not having been delivered to the addressee concerned. The handwriting in Exhibits P-10, 12 and 13 has been spoken to by the Postmaster and the Registration Clerk of Channarayapatna Post Office, as that of the accused. Their competence to speak to the handwriting of the accused has not been doubted in any manner. Above all, in Exhibit P-25 itself the accused has confessed to having affixed the thumb impression on the receipt of the insured cover. Their competence to speak to the handwriting of the accused has not been doubted in any manner. Above all, in Exhibit P-25 itself the accused has confessed to having affixed the thumb impression on the receipt of the insured cover. In the light of these circumstances, we hold that the thumb impression and the attestation on Exhibit P-2 have been made by the accused himself with intent to make it appear that the insured cover in question had been delivered to the addressee concerned. It follows from the above discussion that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Hassan, in S.C. No. 1 of 1965 deserves to be set aside. Though the conclusions arrived at as above are sufficient to dispose of the appeal, it may be necessary to refer to certain points of minor importance dealt with in the judgment under appeal. We have already held that Exhibit P-2, the relevant Postal acknowledgment does not suffer from any defects such as those indicated in the judgment. We have also come to the conclusion that the extra-judicial confession of the accused, namely, Exhibit P-25, is not inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act, nor would it become irrelevant as per the provisions of section 24 of the said Act. The reasons in our view, detailed by the learned Sessions Judge with reference to the requirements of the provisions of section 24 of the Evidence Act are mostly in the nature of surmises or farfetched inferences. We have further held that the evidence of Experts P.Ws. 6 and 19, if read along with the extra-judicial confession, was not entitled to be dismissed for the reasons detailed by the learned trial Judge. As regards the genuineness of the chit, Exhibit P-23, found, in Exhibit P-1, the insured cover, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the trial Court does not deserve acceptance, as the same has been arrived at without due regard to the oral evidence let in in regard to it. As regards the question of exemplar writings and thumb-impressions, the trial Court has observed that it was not open to the investigating authorities to obtain them in the absence of a Magistrate. For this preposition, he has relied for support on a decision of the Supreme Court in (M.P. Sharma and others v. Satish Chandra and others)1. As regards the question of exemplar writings and thumb-impressions, the trial Court has observed that it was not open to the investigating authorities to obtain them in the absence of a Magistrate. For this preposition, he has relied for support on a decision of the Supreme Court in (M.P. Sharma and others v. Satish Chandra and others)1. But, this decision of the Supreme Court has been reconsidered in a later decision in (State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad2.) At page 1816 in paragraph 16 His Lordships Sinha, C.J., speaking for the majority, observes thus: " In view of these considerations, we have come to the following conclusions: (1) An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. In other words, the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to’ the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction with other circumstances. disclosed in evidence in a particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the accused person had been compelled to make the impugned statement. * * * * (4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’. * *** " Viewed in the light of the above enunciation the castigation of the method adopted in this regard by the investigating agency as a "reprehensible procedure" is, to say the least, unwarranted in the facts and circumstances available in the case. Of similar character is the conclusion drawn in regard to the conduct and motive of Kalaiah, P.W. 11, the then Postal Inspector. We do not find any circumstance in the record to suggest even remotely that P.W. 11 was actuated by motives of wreaking vengeance on the accused in launching the prosecution. Of similar character is the conclusion drawn in regard to the conduct and motive of Kalaiah, P.W. 11, the then Postal Inspector. We do not find any circumstance in the record to suggest even remotely that P.W. 11 was actuated by motives of wreaking vengeance on the accused in launching the prosecution. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed against the accused on 13th December, 1965 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1965 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge at Hassan, and find him guilty of both the charges, under sections 467 and 409, Indian Peanl Code. We convict him accordingly. As regards the sentence, there is no doubt these two crimes are treated, as serious enough to warrant punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also liable to fine. But in the circumstances of this case,the accused is a primary school teacher who had been functioning only for a period of 2½ months as a Postmaster, perhaps during his spare time. The moment he was accosted by the Inspector of Post Offices, he seems to have made a clean breast of the whole affair. Further, he is a youngman of about 25 years with the whole future before him. After giving every consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that a sentence of eighteen months rigorous imprisonment on each count would meet the ends of justice. Heis, therefore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months on each of the charges under sections 467 and 409, Indian Penal Code. We direct that the sentences should run concurrently. S.V.S. ----- Order accordingly.