Sr. No. 204

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRR No. 43/2013

IA No. 25/2013

Sushil Kumar

…Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through: None.

v/s

Pritam Kumar

…. Respondent(s)

Through: None.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

This revision petition has been filed against the order whereby an

application of the petitioner seeking report/opinion of forensic expert about

comparison of his signatures and the signatures on the cheque is rejected.

2.

The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the

comparison of the disputed signatures was the only method and procedure in

order to come to a just conclusion of the case and the trial court has failed to

consider the said situation of the law. The opinion of the expert was required

for the purposes of corroboration or disagreeing with the other evidence

recorded in the Court. In Case the signatures are not sent for forensic test to

the hand-writing expert, trial court cannot come to the just conclusion on the

question of fact as to whether the cheque had been signed by the petitioner or

not. The order impugned would show that the evidence of the complainant had

already been closed and the statement of the accused under Section 342 CrPC

2

has been recorded. The petitioner herein has made an application for

examination of defence witnesses and deposited their diet expenses, whereafter

application with a prayer that the signatures may be sent to the forensic for

comparison has been made. The trial court while dealing with the application

has observed as under:

<7.

Herein the accused has brought on record, attestation of

signatures by branch head of J&K Bank branch office Patel Nagar

Jammu, in the account No. 592 of the accused. Beside this nothing is

placed on record. The signatures mark are on his Xerox copy of

document which can never constitute the basis of original signature.

The opinion of hand writing expert, involves, the analysis as slant,

which a person uses in the matter of putting his signatures and in

some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed.

These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an original

signature. Reliance can be made on, AIR 2006 A.P 314 wherein it

was observed that <The opinion of a hand writing expert involves

the analyses of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of

putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at

which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would

become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the

signature mark on a Xerox copy of a document can never

constitute the basis. It is rather surprising that the trial Court

did not undertake any discussion, worth its name, and simply

allowed the application. Except that the trial Court named the

hand writing expert, it did not add a word, touching on the

merits or demerits of the matter=. It is further observed that

<Order granting permission to send Xerox copies of documents

to handwriting expert – Liable to be set-aside.=

8. Further the attestation of signatures enclosed with the file,

furnished by the accused, is a simply Xerox copy and there is

nothing record and to show that in photocopy, there was

endorsement made by accused. Such, document is unauthenticated

3

and unproved. In such a situation, as is been observed in 2009 (1)

T.N.R. L. 207 that in a declaratory suit that cheque was obtained by

plaintiff by use of undue influence, fraud and coercion, it can be

declared as void and invalid, application moved to refer to expert,

impugned letter is a Xerox copies. Nothing on record to shows that

in photocopy there was an endorsement, such document was

unauthenticated and unproved, hence it cannot be sent for

comparison.=

3.

I have considered the application and the order impugned. The

ques