REPORTS UP HELD

REPORTS UP HELD BY HON’BLE COURTS

Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PETITION No.51/98

State Vs Atma Ram & others.

By Hon’ble Justice G.L Gupta/20-01-1999.

In my opinion, at this stage, on the basis of the report of the F.S.L, it cannot be accepted that the letter was not written by the accused. There is also the report of Handwriting Expert Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta on record. It is detailed report. It has been opined that the writings of the letters tallies with the specimen writings of the deceased. It is obvious that there are two opposite opinion on the record, one favoring the accused and the other against. As the report of Anil Kumar Gupta contains reasoning and there are no reasons given in the report of F.S.L. At this stage, report of Anil Kumar Gupta has to be preferred.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA NO.4320 OF 2005

Date of Decision 11-09-2007

Bholi Vs Krishna & others

By the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

The Plaintiffs have examined PW3 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Qualified Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, Fazilka . He has deposited that the thumb impressions on the written statement dt.19-07-1988, vakalatnama dt.19-07-1988 and statement dt.19-07-1988 in civil suit no.83 dt.17-02-1988 titled Smt. Bholi and Krishna etc. are not identical with the specimen, admitted and proved thumb impressions of the plaintiff. His report is Ex-P3 and enlarged photographs are Ex-P4 to Ex-P10. The Learned First Appellate Court has considered the report of DW-1 Finger Print Expert examined by the defendant who has reported that thumb impressions of the plaintiff on the written statement dt.19-07-1988, vakalatnama dt.19-07-1988 and statement before the court are half contoured, totally blurred and cannot be compared. The court has found that a perusal of the written statement and the statement dt.19-07-1988 reveals that thumb impressions are not blurred and the same are clear. The statements of the two of the defendants that the plaintiff was present in the court cannot rebut the report based on Scientific Study of Thumb impressions. Vakalatnama, written statement and the statement in the court are not comparable with the standard thumb impressions of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have appreciated the entire evidence to return a firm findings of the fact that the plaintiff have not appeared before the court on 19-07-1988 which lead to the passing degree in the favour of their mother. Therefore, the findings recorded that degree is result of fraud and misrepresentation cannot be said to the suffering from any illegality or irregularity.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB.

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.129 of 2010

Date of Institution 29-01-2010

Date of Decision 23-09-2013

M/s Sant Ram Harbans Lal Vs Punjab National Bank & others.

Quorum

Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.

Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
In case, we go through entire photographs of the signatures having record of Anil Kumar Gupta, CW1/11 and CW1/12. There is a clear cut difference in the writing H in Q1 than S1 & S3. Similarly, there is great difference in writing the letter “a” in Q1 than S1 & S3 because the mouth of word A in Q1 is opened as compare to S1 & S3. Similarly in word “r” there is vowel in Q1 which is missing in S1 & S3. Then there is apparent difference in writing vowel in “d” in Q1 as compare to S1 & S3. Further there is clear cut difference in writing word “K” in Q1 as compare to S1 & S3. So is in writing word “a & r” in Q1 as compare to S1 & S2. Similar circumstances are appearing in case we examine Q2 with S4 & S5 in chart CW1/11. Therefore we are of the opinion that there is apparent difference in the signature on the disputed cheque as compare to standard signatures of Harchand Kumar on the admitted documents, therefore, certainly, the signature on the disputed cheque of Harchand Kumar are forged one.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA NO.4038 OF 2011(O&M)

Date of Decision:19.10.2011

Karamjit Singh…………………………………..Appellant

……………………………..VS…………………………………

Raman Kumar & ors…………………………..Respondents

BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N JINDAL

Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BALWANT SINGH ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DEVISION), SIRSA, DISTRICT SIRSA (HARYANA)

Civil Suit No.253-C of 2012

Date of institution:09.06.2012

CIS No.CS/2166 of 2013

Date of Decision:20.08.2015

Anand Parkash aged about 57 years son of Shri Harbhajan ,Caste Kamboj, resident of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

……..Planitiff

Versus

Ram Murti son of Shri Manphool, Caste Jat, resident of village Mochiwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

……..Defendant

DW2 Shri anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert has categorically observed in the report Ex.DW2/B that the disputed signature Mark-Qi to Q3 reveals inconsistency in the writing characteristics coupled with clear cut line quality defects such as slow and drawn movement in a laboured manner, tremors of hesitations,concealed retouching, suspicious pen lifts,careful joinings,unusual pen stops and pen pause,heavy edges and blunt terminals etc. In order to corroborate the above mentioned quality of the disputed signatures,he has given a number of examples/instances in the report.The above mentioned defective characteristics of the disputed signatures are also clear if the photographs placed on record are examined,even with naked eyes. Thus the report Ex.DW 2/B is consistent, credit worthy and inspire confidence and is sufficient to rebut the oral as well as Handwriting Expert’s evidence regarding the genuineness writing of the disputed signatures.