SAQLAIN AHMAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saqlain Ahmad, an employee in the office of the Municipal Board, Budaun, was convicted by a Special Magistrate, 1 Class, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 under Secs.506 and 507, I.P.C. His appeal in the Court of Session at Budaun was dismissed. He has applied to this Court in revision. The circumstances which led to the prosecution of the applicant are as follows:

(2.) An anonymous letter was received by post on 20 June 1934, by Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan, Reserve Inspector of Police, Budaun. The contents of the letter are of a scurrilous character abounding in filthy abuse and threats. If the applicant is found to be writer of it, the maximum sentence provided by law cannot be considered to be too severe. On 30 June 1934, the Inspector-General of Police, U.P., received an anonymous petition which purports to ventilate a number of grievances against Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan in respect of acts done by him in his official capacity in relation to his subordinate constables in the police lines. The petition is not couched in abusive language like the letter addressed to Mr. Rashid himself. The Inspector-General forwarded the petition to the local Police. In the meantime Mr. Rashid had also taken action on the letter received by himself. The Police started investigation in respect of both communications and the envelopes in which they had been enclosed. Sub-Inspector Majudullah Khan, who took up the investigation, showed the letter to one Safiullah and another person, who, according to the evidence of Majidullah Khan, expressed the opinion that Saqlain Ahmad was the writer of the two letters. Acting on that information and possibly the statements of witnesses who were subsequently examined at the trial and on the report of the handwriting expert, Saqlain Ahmad was prosecuted.

(3.) The evidence adduced against him consists of the statements of four witnesses: Abid Husain, Mohammad Ismail, Zahur Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad, all of whom said that they were acquainted with the handwriting of the applicant and that, in their opinion, the two letters were in his handwriting. The police could easily obtain documents admittedly in the hand-writing of the accused. These papers and the questioned documents were sent to the hand-writing expert who made photographic enlargements of certain words which were similar or dissimilar in the two sets of the documents. Mr. Stott, the hand writing expert, who examined the documents in question, gave evidence to the effect that, in his opinion, the petition received by the Inspector-General of Police and the letter received by Mr. Abdur Rashid Khan were in the handwriting of the person who wrote, the documents sent to him as exemplars, that is, the documents admittedly written by the applicant. There was no other evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, from which an inference of guilt could be made against the applicant. Relying on the opinion of the hand-writing expert and the evidence of the other witnesses, the Magistrate found the applicant guilty and sentenced him as already stated.