The court established that mere admission of a signature doesn't eliminate the necessity for judicial comparison to ascertain authenticity under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexure A10 order passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act cases/ Additional Sessions Judge – II, Kalpetta, Wayanad. Annexure A10 is an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3352/2023 in S.C.No.253/2022. The above application is filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to refer Exts.P18 & P25 reports and deposition of PW8 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of PW8.

2. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 22(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on the basis of prior information, on 05.01.2022 at about 3.30 pm, PW1/the detecting officer and party reached the place of occurrence and intercepted a car driven by the 1st accused/petitioner. During the search, 475 grams of Methamphetamine was seized from the car.

3. The detecting officer was examined as PW1 and he deposed that, Exts.P18 and P25 reports were forwarded to PW8 who was his immediate superior. PW1 deposed that, both documents contain the signature of PW8. PW8 identified the signature in both documents. During cross examination, PW8 identified his signature in Exts.D2 and D3 and also deposed that, signatures in Exts.P18 and P25 are not similar to the signatures in Exts.D2 and D3. The prayer of the petitioner is that, in order to identify the handwriting and to prove the forgery, questioned signatures of PW8 in Exts.P18 and P25 and the admitted signature of PW8 found in his deposition are to be forwarded to the handwriting expert along with specimen standard signatures of PW8. The above application was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this case. The counsel also takes me through the deposition of PW8 and submitted that PW1 at one stage admitted that there is a difference in the signature. The counsel also takes me through Section 233 (3) Cr.P.C and submitted that the learned Judge ought to have allowed the petition filed for sending the documents for expert opinion. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Radhanandan v. State of Kerala [ 1990 KHC 122 ].

6. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the order. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, when PW8 admits the signature, there is no question of sending the documents for expert opinion. The Public Prosecutor also relied on the judgments of this Court inPushpa Jayan and Others v. Nadeera Ahammed [ 2017 (1) KHC 212 ], Santhosh alias Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi [2023 SCC OnLine SC 538] and Narayanan v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (4) KHC 862 ].

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused the impugned order. The learned Judge mainly relied on the evidence of PW8 who admitted his signatures in Exts.P18 and P25. It is stated by the learned Judge that, since the person who signed Exts.P18 and P25 documents appeared before the court and deposed before the court that the signatures found in Exts.P18 and P25 belongs to him, it is not necessary for sending Exts.P18 and P25 documents along with the deposition of PW8 for comparison. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the signatures in Exts.P18 and P25 is admitted by PW8 and consequently it was proved. Hence expert opinion is not necessary to prove the admitted signature of PW8. But at this stage, the evidence given by PW8 in his deposition is to be noted. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“

Ext.D3 series ലലേയയും Ext.P18 ലലേയയും Ext.P25 ലലേയയും

ഒപ്പുക ൾ തമമ ൽ വവതവതസമണണ ”

8. Eventhough PW8 admitted his signature in Exts.P18 and P25, he also admitted that there is difference in the signature from Ext.D3. Here is a case where PW8 admitted the signature and also admitted that there is di