Author name: admin

Punjab-Haryana High Court Pawan Kumar And Anr vs Baldev Singh And Ors on 14 February, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1723 of 2016 (O&M)    Date of Decision: February 14, 2018 Pawan Kumar and another                      …Appellants                          Versus Baldev Singh and others                      …Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU To prove their case the plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No.1 Baldev Singh as PW-1, Om Parkash as PW-2, Jagdeep Singh as PW-3 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print Expert as PW-4. On the side of the defendants, defendant No.1 appeared as DW-1 and Raghbir Singh appeared as DW-2. PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert proved the signatures of defendant No.3 Puran Chand Mistri on the receipts Ex.PW4/11 to Ex.PW4/35. DW-2 Raghbir Singh,  Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present regular second appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Balwant Singh vs Mohinder Singh And Others on 13 November, 2009 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4098 of 2009 (O&M)        Date of decision: 13.11.2009 Balwant Singh                          ……Appellant                          Versus Mohinder Singh and others            …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA The thumb impressions on the stamp papers, which were produced on 14.11.1996, for execution of the agreement were examined by the handwriting and finger print expert DW-1 Anil Kumar Gupta and he gave his opinion that the alleged thumb impressions of Bhagwan Singh on entry No.7033 dated 14.11.1996 in the register of the stamp vendor Janak Ran on page No.231 did not match with standard thumb impressions of Bhagwan Singh appearing on the agreement Ex.P-1. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 had not been duly proved by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbhagwan vs Mona Ram on 19 January, 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. NO.9601 C OF 2014 & R.S.A. NO.4134 OF 2014                               DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 19, 2016 Harbhagwan                                 …..Appellant                                  VERSUS Mona Ram                                    ….Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH the respondent-plaintiff had produced PW3 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, who, on the basis of the admitted signatures on the written statement, affidavit and Vakalatnama, which have been treated to be as the standard signatures, while comparing with signatures on the entries, which were disputed by the appellant-defendant, proved/opined the same to be that of the appellant-defendant. Even in the lengthy cross-examination, nothing has come out, which would effect the veracity of the report given by said witness. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Therefore, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. Since the main appeal stands dismissed, C.M. No. 9601 C of 2014 for staying the operation and execution of the impugned judgements and decree is also dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Banarsi Dass vs Darshan Singh on 1 May, 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.A-1911-MA of 2016 (O&M)    Date of decision: May 01, 2019 Banarsi Dass                                  …Applicant                                   Versus Darshan Singh                                 …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH INDERJIT SINGH, J. In defence, accused examined DW-1 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print Expert, DW-2 Manish Kumar, Clerk, Bank of India, Branch Faridkot, DW-3 Shalinder Singh, Auction Recorder, Market Committee Faridkot, DW-4 Amandeep Arora, Field Officer, Canara Bank, Branch Office, Faridkot, DW-5 Ravinder Kumar Singla, Auction Recorder, Market Committee, Sadiq, DW-6 Kuldeep Singh and DW-7 Parjinder Singh. It is settled law that presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence. In the present case, the accused has raised defence which is duly supported and corroborated by the defence evidence as well as case of the complainant. Firstly, DW-1 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print Expert, has compared the handwriting of the body of the cheque and opined that it is not in the hands of the accused, which supports the defence version as it was a blank cheque which has been misused. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned JMIC, Faridkot, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court. No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Jeet Singh And Anr vs State of Haryana And Anr on 31 October, 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR-3508-2016                       Date of decision:-31.10.2017 Jeet Singh and another                         …Petitioners                     Versus State of Haryana and another                   …Respondents CRR-3761-2016 Desh Raj and another                            …Petitioners                     Versus State of Haryana and another                     …Respondents CORAM : HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN In pre-charge evidence the complainant examined himself as PW1, Satnam Chand as PW2 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Fingerprints Expert as PW3, besides tendering documents. In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below, as regards the conviction and sentence part, those are upheld and appeals are found to be without any merit and are dismissed accordingly. The petitioners in both the petitions are stated to be on bail granted to them by this Court while suspending their sentence. Their bails are cancelled. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad is directed to issue arrest warrant to get them arrested so as to make them undergo the remaining sentence. Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Jeet Singh vs Suraj Kanwar And Ors on 9 September, 2014 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2340 of 2014 (O&M)            Date of decision:09.09.2014 Jeet Singh                                  …Appellant                              Versus Suraj Kanwar and others                    …Respondents CORAM:       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK PW.5 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert tendered his report Ex.PW.6/1, negatives ExPW.5/2 to Ex.PW.5/22 and photocharts Ex.PW.5/23 to Ex.PW.5/29 and opined that disputed thumb impressions mark Q.1 to Q.17 and standard thumb impressions of Mahla Singh mark S1 to S.4 are identical with each other and have been affixed by one and the same person. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court are upheld. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. No costs.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Raj Kumar vs Bhushan Pal on 23 August, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR 4933/2012(O&M)                    Date of decision:23/08/2012 Raj Kumar                                ………….Petitioner                        vs. Bhushan Pal                              ………….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH They further denied the suggestion that the signatures of the tenant were obtained on blank papers or that the rent note was a forged and fabricated document. The proving of the rent note further found corroboration from the evidence of Handwriting and Finger Print Expert AW5 Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, who duly proved his report A4 and opined that the signatures were that of the tenant Raj Kumar. In rebuttal, the tenant did not examine any Expert or led any other evidence to prove that the signatures were forged and fabricated or were obtained on blank papers.  At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below, moreso, in view of provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, prohibiting a tenant from raising the plea of title of the landlord who had inducted him at the initial stage. Dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Sukhwinder Kaur And Another vs Krishan Kumar on 31 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A No.3478 of 2007       Date of decision: 31st October, 2008 Sukhwinder Kaur and another                       … Appellants                                     Versus Krishan Kumar                                     … Respondent CORAM:       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA He also examined Surinder Kumar attesting witness PW-2 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert PW-3. Appellant-defendant Sukhwinder Kaur herself appeared as DW-1. Amarjit Singh, Advocate was examined as DW-2, Harminder Singh as DW-3 and Mohinder Nath Sharma as DW-4. Both the parties had examined the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and they had given their reports, which were in variance with each other. The trial Court found it safe not to rely upon the testimony of any Expert. Taking into consideration the pronote (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2), the testimony of Suridner Kumar PW-2 attesting witness, the suit was decreed. The Court further held that it had applied intrinsic test and himself examined the documents and found the same not to be forged or fabricated. Accordingly, decree and judgment of the appellate Court is modified to the extent that plaintiff will not be entitled to pendentelite interest @ 12 percent p.a. and costs. However, he shall be entitled to recovery of Rs.1.00 lac with interest @ 6 percent p.a. from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount. With these modifications in the order of appellate Court below, present appeal is disposed off

Punjab-Haryana High Court Banta Singh vs Ajit Singh on 23 August, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A No.3386 of 2011 (O&M)  Date of decision: 23rd August, 2011 Banta Singh                                     … Appellant                                   Versus Ajit Singh                                      … Respondent CORAM:        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert DW-1 has also compared the signatures of Ajit Singh respondent-plaintiff and has stated that they tally with the signatures on the plaint as well as on replication and vakalatnama. It was stated that thus, there was a grave error on the part of the trial Court not to exhibit the writing dated 3rd January, 1972. Thus, the substantial question of law formulated by counsel for the appellant that the writing dated 3rd January, 1972 could not be ignored by the Courts below in view of the testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert DW-1, As a result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Iqbal Singh vs Hardayal Rai on 3 December, 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1746 of 2013 (O&M)          Date of decision : 3.12.2019                                … Iqbal Singh                            …………….Appellant                                 vs. Hardayal Rai                         ……………..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan PW-3 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and finger Print Expert, Fazilka, proved his report Exhibit PW 3/1, photocharts Exhibits PW 3/2 to PW 3/5, specimen handwriting of Hardyal Rai as Exhibit PW 3/6. The finding of the trial Court was modified accordingly. Such findings recorded by the Courts below are proper and appropriate. The judgments passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No ground is there to upset such judgments. No substantial question of law arises. There is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed accordingly.