Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Chamkaur Singh —Petitioner
versus
Mithu Singh —Respondent
C.R No. 3434 of 2013
Decided on 29.10.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.J.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Expert opinion is a part of administration of justice.
Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 45 and 73—Expert opinion—Comparison of handwriting—When opinion of expert has been taken, Court may verify opinion or to test its reliability proceed under Section 73 to make comparison by itself—Under Section 45, opinion of expert as to identity of handwriting is relevant in determination of identity of handwriting before Court—Although evidence of handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence yet Court has power under Section 73 to examine handwriting itself. (Para 10)
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 45, 67 and 73—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 26 Rule 10-A—Expert opinion—Rejection of application filed by petitioner-defendant for sending pronote and receipt in dispute to State Forensic Science Laboratory—Court is not an handwriting expert, Court does it only through it visual experience—Ordinarily, Court should not take upon itself responsibility of comparing signatures when disputed, as in such matters technical expertise is necessary—Although opinion of third expert is not binding upon Court, yet trial Court being a Court of fact has to arrive at independent decision and opinions of experts are not binding upon trial Court as Court is an expert of experts—Since parties are not opposed to appointment of independent handwriting expert, opinion of an expert of SFSLI Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (in short CFSL), which is a government agency would be necessary to resolve conflict—Application moved by petitioner-defendant for sending pronote and receipt in dispute for comparison to SFSL/CFSL allowed. (Paras 12 and 13)
(iii) Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 45 and 47—Expert opinion—Role of a Judge is to preside over proceedings and rule on points of law—Expert’s overriding duty is to Court, not to who call him—Opinion of expert is very important and court has to determine lis keeping in view his opinion—Any lapse or mistake due to lack of skill by expert can lead to grave and manifest injustice to a party—Need of hour is to control, regulate, certify, accredit and devise means for registering expert witnesses who appear in Courts—A Code of ethics and conduct for their working should also be framed—Besides this, regulatory authority comprising of qualified concerned registered professionals and others related to field be also established to deal with situations where there are conflicting opinions of experts and consensus opinion of Board of experts under supervision of expert regulatory authority should be binding on contesting parties. (Para 14)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Paramjeet Singh, J.— Calling of experts as witnesses by parties to the litigation in India at least relates back from the date when the Evidence Act was enforced in India in the year 1872.
2. Through this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 7.5.2013 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Phul whereby application filed by the petitioner-defendant for sending the pronote and receipt in dispute (in short “the questioned documents”) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (in short “SFSL”) has been dismissed.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,03,200 on the basis of questioned documents. Upon notice, the petitioner-defendant put in appearance through counsel and filed his written statement. Various objections were taken. One of the objections was that questioned documents were forged and fabricated and material alterations and additions had been made therein. On pleadings of parties, issues were framed and parties led their respective evidence. The petitioner-defendant examined V.B. Bhatnagar, handwriting and fingerprint expert in his evidence and the respondent-plaintiff examined Anil Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. Since the reports of both these experts were contradictory, the petitioner-defendant moved application for sending the questioned documents to the SFSL for comparison of alleged signatures of the petitioner-defendant and also alleged alteration and addition in the questioned documents, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.5.2013. Hence, this revision petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that opinions of two handwriting experts are contradictory. The handwriting expert of the petitioner categorically stated that the signatures over the questioned documents materially differ from the admitted/standard signatures of the petitioner-defendant, whereas, the handwriting expert of the respondent-plaintiff stated that the signatures over the questioned documents tally with the admitted signatures. In reply to the application for comparison of questioned documents by the government agency, the respondent had averred that he has no objection from getting the disputed signatures examined from any forensic science laboratory. In the above circumstances, the Court should seek opinion from an independent expert.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that neither there is any variation in the signatures on the questioned documents, nor there is any material alteration and addition. The report of the expert examined by the petitioner-defendant is a doctored report and, the Court has power to examine the signatures itself. The sending of questioned documents to the SFSL would delay the decision of the case. The expert examined by the respondent-plaintiff in rebuttal is a qualified expert.
7. Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the primary controversy with regard to the questioned documents is whether these are forged and fabricated and have material alterations and additions. Although the application has been filed for comparison of the questioned documents from SFSL as an additional evidence, but perusal of application reveals that in fact, it is under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8. Piquant situation arises when expert opinion on handwriting is countered by contrary expert opinion. Often, a Court is faced with conflicting evidence given by the handwriting experts. This obviously is disruptive to trial and generally weakens the credibility of expert evidence. Assu
