Expert opinion is not conclusive without corroboration, and if two views are equally possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted.

1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the ld. ASJ whereby the revision petition filed by the State against the order passed by ld. ACMM, discharging the petitioner in FIR no. 176/2001 registered at P.S. Keshav Puram under Section 468/469/471/120B IPC, was allowed and it was ordered that charges be framed against the petitioner under Section 466 IPC.

2. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 18.10.1999 made by Mr. Neeraj Bharti, SDM, Rajouri Garden stating that he had received a complaint from Ms. Rekha Chauhan (accused no.1 in the charge sheet) that Sanjay Kumar Malik (accused no.2 in the charge sheet) had submitted two affidavits dated 19.07.1999 with forged signatures of SDM, Rajouri Garden for the purpose of solemnization of their marriage. It was stated in the complaint that the SDM had seen the photocopies of the affidavits and certified that the signatures on the two affidavits were not his. It was alleged that the affidavits were produced before the priest of Arya Samaj Mandir and relying upon them, the marriage of Ms. Rekha Chauhan and Sanjay Kumar Malik was performed by him. As per the prosecution, the marriage register from the temple and the said forged affidavits were seized by the police and specimen signatures of various persons including the present petitioner were obtained for expert opinion and as per the report of GEQD Hyderabad, it was established that on the aforesaid affidavits, the words “Signed before me” and date “19.07.1999” were in the hand writing of the present petitioner. Charge sheet was filed against the above mentioned two accused persons along with the petitioner.

3. The ld.ACMM while discharging all the three accused persons opined that the charges against them were groundless and there was not even remote possibility of conviction of the accused persons. Again this order the State went in revision and the learned ASJ maintained the impugned order qua the accused Rekha Chauhan and Sanjay Kumar Malik, but reversed the findings of the learned ACMM qua the present petitioner and while allowing the revision petition ordered the framing of charges under section 466 IPC against the petitioner. The order of the learned ASJ has been challenged by way of present petition.

4. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the learned ASJ has gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that there is no material against the petitioner for framing of charge under section 466 IPC and has erred in interfering with a well reasoned and speaking order of discharge passed by the learned ACMM after due scrutiny of material brought on record by the prosecution. It has been submitted that the learned ASJ has gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned trial Court had rightly observed that the report of an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is merely an opinion and not a conclusive proof of the validity of the handwriting in question. It has been further argued that even if on the basis of the GEQD report, any doubt was raised regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, still in the event of two possible views, the one favouring the accused should have been accepted. Reliance has been placed on Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharastra, (2002) 2 SCC 135.

5. On the other hand the learned APP for the State has submitted that the contention of the petitioner that there was no material against him for framing of charge is contrary to the facts on record in the light of the GEQD report which specifically mentioned that on the affidavit the words “Signed before me” and the date “19.07.1999” were in the handwriting of the petitioner herein. Consequently, it has been argued that the instant Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record as well as t