Lukia Saidi v. R., (H.C.D 1969) Crim. App. 626-M-68, 1/11/68, Seaton J.

The accused was charged in count one with making a document without authority [s. 346(1), Penal Code], in count two with uttering a document without authority [s. 346(2) ], and in count three with obtaining goods by false pretences [s. 302]. There was some evidence that the accused had obtained goods on credit by making a written agreement to pay at the end of the month and signing it with the name of another person. The trial court convicted the accused on the first two counts. In doing so the court relied heavily on a written report submitted by a document examiner which stated that he had compared the agreement with handwriting samples of the accused and others and concluded, “I am of the opinion that (accused) is the writer of the disputed handwriting”. The accused was acquitted on the third count on the ground that the promise to pay at the end of the month was a representation with reference to the future and not a matter of fact past or present.

Held: (1) In acquitting the accused on the third count, the trial court correctly applied the definition of false pretences in s. 301, Penal Code.          With regard to the second count, s. 346(2) refers to a document that is made, sent or executed by one person and uttered by another. There is no evidence of this in the present case. The report of the handwriting expert is not in the form prescribed by s. 154C, Criminal Procedure Code, in that it does not indicate any of the similarities or comparisons between the disputed writing and the specimen writings as is required by the 7^th Schedule, Criminal Procedure Code. Such an expert can say in an appropriate case that he does not believe that a particular writing was by a particular person. However, the most that he can say positively is that the two writings are so similar as to be indistinguishable. [Citing Hassan Salum v. R., (1964) E.A. 126] Appeal allowed on both counts.