Sisti Nganga Ami v. R., Crim, App. 265-A-67, 3/5/68, Platt J.

Sisti Nganga Ami v. R., Crim, App. 265-A-67, 3/5/68, Platt J.

Accused was convicted of theft by public servant. (P.C. s. 270). He was sentenced to two years imprisonment but no corporal punishment was ordered. There was evidence that  accused, a Government Co-operative Inspector, gave advice as to the formation of a cooperative and received money for the purpose of registering the cooperative and received money for the purpose of registering the cooperative and depositing the remainder in a bank. The cooperative was never registered and no bank deposit was made. Several witnesses testified that they had seen accused sign receipts for the money and identified his signature on the receipt s when they were presented in court. Accused argued that testimony as to handwriting may only be given by experts and that the Minimum Sentences Act did not apply because the formation  of cooperatives was not within his duties and the cooperative was not registered.

            Held;(1) Section 49 of the Evidence Act declares that the testimony of any person who is acquainted with a person’s handwriting in one of the prescribed ways is admissible to identify the handwriting. The weight attached to the testimony may vary with the qualifications of the witness and expert testimony may be required in some cases. However, this

Is not such a case. (2) Although the cooperative was not registered and the formation of cooperatives is not within accused ‘s normal duties, the transaction was closely related to his proper duties and was gained “by virtue of his employment” (P.C. s.) Therefore, the Minimum sentences act was applicable. Twenty four strokes corporal punishment ordered in addition to the two-year prison sentence.