JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J.

CRL.M.A.19908/2022 in O.M.P. (COMM) 361/2019

CRL.M.A. 19909/2022 in OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

By way of the present application bearing Crl. M.A. No.19908/2022 filed in OMP (COMM.) No.361/2019 under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), the applicant Kamal Kumar, seeks action against the petitioner Milan Saini and his Special Power of Attorney-holder ('SPA-holder' for short) Siri Chand Saini inter-alia for committing perjury. Another application bearing Crl. M.A. No.19909/2022 has been filed by the same applicant in OMP (CONT.) No.1/2017 under section 340 Cr.P.C., containing identical allegations.

2. In view of the commonality of the allegations and issues involved, both applications are being decided by the present common judgment.

3. To crystallize the allegations made in the applications, reference may be made to the following paragraphs of one of the applications, which are mutatis mutandis the same in the other application:

Paras of Crl. M.A. 19908/2022

"8. That a bare look at the aforesaid purported signatures [on the documents listed at S. Nos. a to c of Para 7, above] of the alleged Attorney (Mr. Siri Chand Saini) vis-a-vis his signature on the alleged Power of Attorney (dated 09.07.2019) would reveal that the same are starkly different and ex-facie have been signed by different persons. As submitted above, a copy of the alleged Power of Attorney (dated 09.07.2019) it is available at pages 4 to 6 of Index-II of the petition Paper-book before this Hon`ble Court.

"9. That the Applicant has filed the present application after noticing the said difference in the signatures of the alleged Attorney. Out of abundant caution, the Applicant obtained certified copies of the above documents (listed at S. Nos. a to c of Para 7, above) from this Hon`ble Court and approached M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services, A-1/106, Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 for forensic examination of those signatures.

"10. That M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services has since given its Report dated 04.08.2022 to the effect that differences between the admitted signatures (on the Power of Attorney) and the questioned signatures (on the above documents -listed at S. Nos. a to c of para 7, above) are fundamental in nature and beyond the limit of natural variations.

* * * * *

"12 It further observed that `Both questioned and admitted signatures also do not agree in their general handwriting characteristics such as relative size and different alignment of characters with respect to each other, relative spacing between them, speed and skill, movement, slant etc."

"12 That with the above observations and findings, M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services has opined that `Cumulative consideration of all the above led me to the opinion that the person who write admitted signatures marked a1 to A6 did not write the questioned signatures marked QI state that to Q10'."

(there is a second para 12 in the application)

* * * * *

"14. Now that the Report and finding of a Forensic expert is available, it is quite certain beyond the realm of any doubt that signatures the above documents (listed at S. Nos. a to c of para 7, above) are forged and not genuine. The same are not that of the purported Attorney (Mr. Siri Chand Saini). It is also evident that someone, other than the alleged Attorney (Mr. Siri Chand Saini) has signed the documents the above documents (listed at S. Nos. a to c of para 7, above) and presented/filed the above-captioned petition under Section 34 of the Act before this Hon`ble Court as if the same has been signed, sworn and filed by the alleged Attorney (Mr. Siri Chand Saini).

"15. It is submitted that after it was revealed that such fake/forged signatures were used by the Petitioner and his Power of Attorney, the Applicant also compared the same with the signatures and details in affidavits, vakalatnama, applications and other documents filed by the Petitioner through the same alleged Power of Attorne