Author name: admin

            If the opinion of the expert is found by a court to be honest and reliable, it can be considered better evidence than the evidence of other witnesses. Devi Parshad vs State A.I.R 1967 Allahabad 164

In order to establish the identity of the paper, one the questioned as well as the others in the bank copy, from which questioned document is said to have been torn out, the colour, thickness, finish of surface, water mark, style, cutting, size, ruling, fluorescence have to be looked into. But it does not appears to be necessary that before the identity of two papers can be established, all the aforesaid things must be similar, even some of the things may enable the expert to give an opinion about the identity of two papers.             Questions as to whether the paper on which document is written has been torn out from a copy is an expert opinion, under Sec. 45  the opinion on that point of person specially skilled in such science is a relevant fact. Parag vs Tate of Raj. 1981 Cri. L.J.1244

            A recognized agent of the party is entitled to examined and cross examined the witness. As such the handwriting Expert in whose favour the party has executed a special power of attorney is entitled to cross examine the Handwriting Expert of opposite Party. Govind Narain Vs Choti Devi AIR 1966 Raj 170. Cross examination of a witness is acting and not pleading. Hence there is no objection in special cases for a expert being allowed under special power of attorney to be employed for the cross examination of another expert in the same line of business of other side. Thamu Deo vs. Bal Deo 1942 Nagpur Law Journel 449.

The copy of the detailed report , bearing reason, on the bases of which the expert arrived on conclusion, were not supplied to the parties earlier rather produced in court, at the time of evidence – no prejudiced – could ask for time to prepare themselves effectively for the purpose of cross-examination.

The decision by the court based up on comparison by it specially without the aid of enlarged photographs or any expert advice – is dangerous. Shriniwas Pansari vs. Dr.Hari Parshad AIR 1983 Patna 321

The court acted as an expert by comparing the signatures itself without the devices which are available to a handwriting expert, besides the lack of knowledge of the subject, which the handwriting expert possesses, is going beyond the ordinary limits of the capacity of the court. AIR 1960 And. Pd 359             The original document should not be sent outside court. It is desirable that the expert examine the document in the court and submit his report. 2005 (2) LJR – 475 (mad)

Gian Chand v. Baldev Raj, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 129271 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before :- Hemant Gupta, J. Regular Second Appeal No. 2867 of 2005. D/d. 23.2.2007 GianChand – Appellant Versus Baldev Raj – Respondent Civil Procedure Code – Money suit – An agriculturist getting loan from commission agent (plaintiff) – Plaintiff filing suit for recovery of the loan amount – Suit decreed – Plaintiff is not entitled to pre-suit interest as it is not a commercial transaction.                 Plaintiff  Baldev Raj has examined himself as PW1 and proved the transactions between the parties. PW3 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert, has compared the disputed signatures of the defendant on the bahi entries including that of Exhibits P-13 to P-15. Therefore, it is not the bahi entries alone which have been taken into consideration. Such evidence has been taken as corroborative evidence between the parties. In view of the above, the impugned decree passed by the Courts below is modified. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the recovery of Rs. 63,477.06 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 53,072.06 from the date of filing of suit till realisation of decretal amount. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

RSA No.2295 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on January 22,2010. Harbans Lal – Appellant vs. Gurdev Singh –Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and after tendering some documents closed his evidence. On the other hand, defendant examined Harinder Kalia, Deed Writer as DW-1, Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DW-2, himself appeared in the witness box as DW-3 and closed his evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs

IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3044 of 2008                                                            Date of decision: 14.1.2010  Mohinder Kaur and another                                                                          …..Appellants  vs. Kanwal Singh and others.                                                                        …..Respondents  CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. — Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J In order to establish this fact they got thumb mark on the statement in the above said civil suit compared with specimen thumb impressions from Shri Anil Kumar Gupta handwriting and finger print expert. He stepped into the witness box as PW5 and gave his detailed report Ex.PW5/C alongwith photographic charge. As per this report the disputed thumb impressions could not be compared with the specimen thumb impression because the disputed thumb impressions were unfit for comparison. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants was unable to controvert any of the aforesaid finding recorded by the lower appellate Court. Thus, I find no fault with the aforesaid finding of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA- 374 of 2016(O&M)                                                                  Date of Decision:17.9.2018 Surjit Kaur (since deceased) through her LRs                                  —Appellant vs. Sukhdev Singh and others                                                                 — Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal the respondents examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to prove on the basis of comparison that Will bears thumb impressions of Bhola Singh and the same tally with thumb impressions of Bhola Singh on gift deed Ex. D2, written statement and statement of Bhola Singh in civil suit No. 150 dated 24.3.1972. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out if testimonies of aforesaid witnesses are not worthy of credence and reliance or the same are not sufficient to prove the Will in consonance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no counter to testimony of handwriting expert that the Will is thumb marked by Sh. Bhola Singh. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. As the appeal has been decided on merits, applications for condonation of delay of 109 days in refiling and 12 days in filing the appeal are of academic relevance.