106

2023:PHHC:062032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-1108-2023

DECIDED ON: 01.05.2023

RAJ RANI

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

DESRAJ

.....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:

Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been moved before this Court

assailing the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class,

Tohana, wherein application of petitioner-complainant under Section 311

Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that being complainant,

he moved an application seeking permission to examine Handwriting and

Fingerprint Expert in evidence of complainant alleging that report dated

10.12.2022 of the handwriting expert Dr. Inderjeet Singh is required to be

examined to divulge the truth and correct opinion, which is based on scientific

theories and will be the clinching issue for just and fair adjudication of the

case in itself.

The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the accused examined one witness Dr. Inderjeet, Handwring and Fingerprint

Expert, Patiala in his defence and the said Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert

MEENU

2023.05.01 18:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-1108-2023

-2-

submitted his report before learned trial Court as Ex.D-1 alongwith

photographs Ex.D-2 to D-10 alongwith his affidavit exhibited as DW-1/A as

examination in chief. Since an adverse report has been given by the aforesaid

expert qua the signatures of accused Desraj, an apprehension arose in the mind

of the petitioner-complainant that a false report has been prepared regarding

comparison of signatures upon the cheque in question probably in connivance

with the accused, and therefore, rebuttal of said report is just and necessary

inasmuch as the specimen signatures have been compared from power of

attorney and from the zimni orders.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the

reply filed to the said application before the trial Court on behalf of defendant

raising a defence for dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.,

wherein it has been averred that signatures on the cheque is not fastening of

the accused and complainant, who have got the testimony of the expert at the

same time during his evidence, which the complainant has failed to do so and

rebuttal of such evidence would only be a new fact or improvisation of the

evidence.

Considering the aforesaid submissions and the circumstances

involved in the case particularly where the signatures on the cheque have been

categorically denied by the accused upon the cheque in question and in the

light of the report by Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, Dr. Inderjeet Singh,

wherein the signatures in comparison from the power of attorney and zimni

orders of the accused did not match with the signatures on the cheque in

question have been reported. A rebuttal to the same is required and in fact no

prejudice would be caused to the accused-respondent, if the petitioner is

allowed to rebut the said evidence, as is the rationale laid down in Bande Siva

MEENU

2023.05.01 18:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-1108-2023

-3-

Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs

and others 2016 (2) ALT 248, which reads as under:-

“It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court,

depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case

before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the

comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the

admitted handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from

sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an

expert merely because the time gap between the admitted

handwriting/signature and the dis