Author name: admin

Punjab-Haryana High Court Pritam Singh And Another vs Lakhvir Singh And Another on 17 January, 2014                                                               Saluja Mukesh Kumar   HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.231 of 2014 (O&M)              Date of decision:17.1.2014 Pritam Singh and another                          …Appellants    Versus Lakhvir Singh and another                         …Respondents CORAM:       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK However, defendants have examined Anil Kumar Gupta (DW-5) as Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who compared and examined the disputed signatures of Gurmit Singh, Naib Tehsildar appearing on affidavit Ex.P2, with his standard admitted signatures. This expert witness submitted his report and stated that the disputed signatures were not similar in writing characteristic with the standard signatures. He further opined that the disputed signatures were not by the same person who has put the standard admitted signatures. It has been amply proved on record by way of overwhelming and well convincing evidence produced by the defendants-respondents, that it was only the defendants who were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract, while trying to over reach the court and withheld the best evidence available to him. Further, there was expert opinion against him. Although, expert report proved by DW5 as Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert would not be a conclusive proof in itself, yet when it is examined and appreciated in the context of attending circumstances of the case, it becomes clear that the plaintiff has unsuccessfully tried to play smart, to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the plaintiff failed to prove his case in this regard.

Punjab-Haryana High Court M/S Ramji Dass Kishore Chand vs Kamardeep on 3 November, 2008       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA                    AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3286 of 2006               Date of Decision:03.11.2008 M/s Ramji Dass Kishore Chand, Commission Agents, Malout                                                   …..Appellant              Vs. Kamardeep                                        …..Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:-    Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant.  On the other hand, the plaintiff- firm has examined the document expert Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PW1 who has opined that the disputed writing and signatures at Mark Q.1, Q.2 and standard signatures Mark S.1 to S.3, specimen writings Mark A.1 to A.10 of Kamardeep are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person. A careful delving into Ex.P.1 would reveal that in this entry, the amount has not been mentioned only at one place rather at two places. The amount mentioned in landa script in the beginning of this entry is also Rs.1,57,000/-. There is no overwriting or cutting worth the name in this amount. There is an interesting feature in this case. The case of the plaintiff- firm is that a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was advanced by it to the defendant, whereas the defendant admitted that he had raised a loan of Rs.10,700/-. On counting the digits of the figure Rs.1,57,000/-, these work out to 6 whereas that of Rs.10,700/- comes to 5. To add further to it, in Ex.P.2 the relevant entry in Pakka Rokar, Ex.P.3 the attested copy of Khata (ledger) for the year 2000-01, Ex.P.4 attested copy of relevant entry in the Khata for the year 2001-2002, the notice Ex.P.5 served upon the defendant, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.1,57,000/-. One more zero was also required to be added to convert 10,700 into 1,57,000. There are no allegations that zero has been added later on. In the ultimate analysis, it boils down that the defendant’s plea that he had taken a loan of Rs.10,700/- only is unacceptable. The entries in Ex.P.1 cannot be read or assessed in isolation of entries in Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.X and the expert’s report Ex.PW2/1. The learned Appellate Court has erred in not taking into account this documentary evidence. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is accepted modifying the impugned judgment decree dated 24.5.2006 and restore the judgment/ decree dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned trial Court in its entirety.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Kailash Chand vs M/S Mangaliawala Traders on 3 January, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No.: R.S.A.No.3 of 2012  Date of Decision : 03.01.2012             Kailash Chand                  ….   Appellant                                 Vs.             M/s Mangaliawala Traders       ….   Respondent * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and examined Handwriting Expert Anil Kumar Gupta as PW-2 and also examined plaintiff’s Accountant Ram Niwas as PW-4. Plaintiff and Ram Niwas broadly stated according to the plaint allegations. Anil Kumar Gupta – handwriting expert reported that the disputed bahi entries bear signatures of the defendant. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to accept the same. Plaintiff has led cogent and sufficient evidence to prove its case. The plaintiff’s Proprietor himself appeared in the witness-box and examined his Accountant, who had authored the disputed bahi entries. Both of them have proved the said bahi entries bearing signatures of the defendant and also proved advancement of different amounts, as pleaded in the plaint. Their statements are also corroborated by handwriting expert Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-2). On the other hand, there is self serving oral statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s cogent evidence.

Criminal Appeal No.1731-SB of 2003                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.1731-SB of 2003        Decided on 9 .12.2009. Raghu Nath Bansal                          …… Appellant. Versus State of Punjab                             …. Respondent. CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :-   Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant.              Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl.A.G, Punjab. When asked to enter upon his defence, he produced Anil Kumar Gupta Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, Fazilka (DW-1), Sadhu Ram (DW-2), Harpal Singh, Revenue Accountant (DW-3) and Balraj (DW-4), Krishan Lal Narang (DW-5), Constable Joginder Singh (DW-6), Jag Singh LDC, PSEB, Sub Division, Doda (DW-7). In the present case, the charge framed against the appellant is that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification for changing and releasing electricity connection in the name of Malkiat Singh from the name of his father Joginder Singh. However, the evidence led by the prosecution does not support the said fact but was in respect of change of the dead meter only. Ex.PA is the basis of the prosecution in which Joginder Singh through Malkiat Singh had made a request that meter at their premises to be changed as it was lying dead. No request has been made in this application that meter be changed in the name of Malkiat Singh from the original consumer Joginder Singh, his father. No doubt, the charge can be amended at any stage but in view of the above circumstances discussed above, it would not be inconsonance of justice to amend the charge after period of fifteen years and in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court stands set aside and the accused stands acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

(THIS JUDGEMENT RELATES TO CASE OF FRAUDULENT ADDITION/ALTERATION) Punjab-Haryana High Court Saraj Singh @ Bittu Diary Wala vs Kewal Krishan on 28 September, 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.              CRR 3906-2016 (O&M)                 Date of decision: 28.09.2017 Saraj Singh @ Bittu Diary Wala             …..Petitioner                                     versus Kewal Krishan                               ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh In addition to the going through the report of the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, I have myself gone through the disputed cheque. A perusal of the cheque shows that the date on the cheque is with a different ink. The name of the drawee complainant and the amount mentioned in the words is with the same handwriting. The signatures of the accused are in the same ink which was used for filling the date on the cheque. It is clear to the naked eyes that before the digits 40,000/-, digit ‘1’ has been added with a slightly different ink. There was no reason for the lower Court to discard the opinion of the expert, particularly, when the said addition is visible to the naked eyes. In this case, there was no requirement to take the specimen handwriting of anybody, since the addition is of one stroke which is not comparable by taking specimen handwriting of anybody. The reasoning given by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert is quite convincing. Therefore, it has to be held that before digits 40,000/-, in the amount box of the cheque, digit ‘1’ was added later on.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Nathu Ram vs Charano @ Charanjit Kaur And Ors on 10 August, 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. SAO No.47 of 2014 (O&M)             Date of Decision: 10.08.2017 Nathu Ram                                     …..Appellant       Vs Charano @ Charanjit Kaur and ors                                               ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH The trial Court further held that the Handwriting Expert further gave the opinion that thumb impression at Mark Q1 on interim order dated 31.10.1992 differ from the thumb impression at Mark Q2 to Q6. Therefore, as per the opinion of the Handwriting Expert even in the case titled as Nathu Ram vs. Charno, two different person on two different occasion were impersonated as Charno in the Court. The trial Court on the aforesaid parameters, dismissed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed before the lower Appellate Court. [5]. The lower Appellate Court held that though the plaintiff had examined PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who opined that the disputed signature on written statement does not tally with the admitted signatures/standard signatures of Charano. In such like circumstances, Sh. Amar Singh Bhullar, Advocate who is a material witness can identify the plaintiff in order to dispel any suspicion and can also prove the allegations of the plaintiff. Since Sh. Amar Singh Bhullar, Advocate has not been examined, therefore, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of permission to lead additional evidence was allowed in order to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment effectively. The application was allowed 4 of 7 for substantial cause. The satisfaction was recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the additional evidence so prayed by the appellant would enable the Court to pronounce the judgment and is necessary for advancing the substantial cause of justice. [6]. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in affirmative so as to dispel the alleged cloud on the decree dated 12.03.1993. Issue No.7-A specifically was wide enough to cover the issue of alleged decree being fraudulent. Once the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in affirmative, she was not entitled to lead any additional evidence at appellate stage as she was not entitled to fill lacuna in the present case. Learned counsel relied upon Youdhister vs. Siri Ram and others, 1996(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 706. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. [8]. PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert has given his opinion to the following effect:- “The disputed thumb impression Mark Q1 is different from the other disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q2 to Q6. The disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q1 to Q-6 are different from the standard/specimen thumb impressions of Charno Mark R1 to R5 (R.T.I.) & L1, L2 (L.T.I.) i.e. disputed thumb impressions Mark-Q1 to Q6 are not affixed by the ladies, who affixed specimen thumb impressions Mark R1 to R5 5 of 7 (R.T.I.) & L1, L2 (L.T.I.).”

Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbhajan Singh vs Joginder Singh And Ors on 14 May, 2019 RSA No. 5197 of 2012                                 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.                             Date of Decision: May 14th , 2019  Harbhajan Singh                                 —Appellant                                  vs. Joginder Singh and others                       —Respondents RSA No. 2477 of 2013(O&M) Harbhajan Singh                                   —Appellant                                  vs. Dial Singh and others                            —Respondents Coram:   Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal The appellate court, in para 11 of the judgment, has referred to testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert PW3 and noticed the opinion/observations made by him to conclude that on detailed examination and comparison, he is of the opinion that thumb impressions Mark Q1 to Q3 on the sale deed Ex. D3 do not tally with specimen thumb impressions Mark L1 to L3 and mark R1 to R3. In the later part of the judgment, there is not even a whisper with regard to testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta or the reasons that weighed in the mind of Appellate Court to discard the report and testimony of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. There cannot be dispute about settled position in law that science of finger prints comparison is a perfect science and as such testimony of an expert witness can be relied upon unless there are valid and legal reasons to reject the comparison and opinion made by the expert. In the case at hand, the contesting defendants did not avail services of another expert to counter/rebut the report prepared by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta meaning thereby that report prepared by Sh.Anil Kumar Gupta remains unrebutted and unchallenged.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Karamjit Singh vs Raman Kumar & Ors on 19 October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4038 of 2011 (O&M)          Date of Decision: 19 .10.2011 KaramjitSingh                                       …Appellant                               Vs. Raman Kumar & Ors.                                   Respondents BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL The defendant appears to have examined , DW 2 Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, in order to counter the earlier report of PW 6 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him. Even otherwise, the defendant has failed to rebut the oral evidence of the plaintiffs, scribe and the witnesses, in whose presence the document was scribed and he had signed the same. Writing Ex.P2 and P.3 dated 2.4.1998 and 2.4.1999 cannot be false and fabricated one because as per record suit was filed on 8.11.2000 on the basis of the agreement dated 5.4.1997. Stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 3.4.1998. Suit having been filed within three years from the stipulated date was within limitation and there was no need to make a repeated writing for extension of time. As such the plaintiffs cannot be said to have any intention to forge the entries to bring the suit within limitation. Consequently, the plea, that the entries were forged on the document, is proved to be incorrect. Since both the courts below have already given relief with regard to alternative relief for recovery of the amount, therefore, it would not be proper to further lessen the same. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this court. Dismissed.

REPORT OF ANIL KUMAR GUPTA HANDWRITING EXPERT HAS BEEN PREFERRED OVER REPORT OF STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB RAJASTHAN AS REPORT OF ANIL KUMAR GUPTA CONTAINS DETAILED REASONS AND THERE ARE NO REASON GIVEN IN THE REPORT OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB (FSL). Rajasthan High Court Atma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 20 January, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 CriLJ 4274 Author: G Gupta Bench: G Gupta ORDER G.L. Gupta, J. Mr. Shishodia contended that by the opinion of the F.S.L. it is not borne out that the letter was written by the deceased. In my opinion, at this stage, on the basis of the report of the F.S.L. it cannot be accepted that the letter in which the allegation of cruelty soon before the death of Vijay Laxmi is mentioned, was not written by the accused. There is also the report of handwriting expert               Shri Anil Kumar Gupta on record. It is a detailed report containing various points. It has been opined that the writing of the letter tallied with the specimen writings of the deceased. It is obvious, there are two opposite opinions on record; one favouring the accused and the other against him.      As the report of Anil Kumar Gupta contains reasonings and there are no reasons given in the report of F.S.L., at this stage, the report of Anil Kumar Gupta has to be preferred. Mahendra Singh also says that the letter dt. 12-8-1993 was written by his daughter. That being so, on the basis of the report of the F.S.L. at this stage, it cannot be said that the letter dt. 12-8-1993 was not written by the deceased. Consequently, there is no merit in the Revision Petition No. 126/98 and Misc. Petition No. 51 /98 filed by Atma Ram and they are hereby dismissed. The Revision Petition No. 281/98 preferred by Mahendra Singh is also dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4038 of 2011 (O&M)          Date of Decision: 19 .10.2011 KaramjitSingh                                       …Appellant                               Vs. Raman Kumar & Ors.                                   Respondents BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL The defendant appears to have examined , DW 2 Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, in order to counter the earlier report of PW 6 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him. Even otherwise, the defendant has failed to rebut the oral evidence of the plaintiffs, scribe and the witnesses, in whose presence the document was scribed and he had signed the same. Writing Ex.P2 and P.3 dated 2.4.1998 and 2.4.1999 cannot be false and fabricated one because as per record suit was filed on 8.11.2000 on the basis of the agreement dated 5.4.1997. Stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 3.4.1998. Suit having been filed within three years from the stipulated date was within limitation and there was no need to make a repeated writing for extension of time. As such the plaintiffs cannot be said to have any intention to forge the entries to bring the suit within limitation. Consequently, the plea, that the entries were forged on the document, is proved to be incorrect. Since both the courts below have already given relief with regard to alternative relief for recovery of the amount, therefore, it would not be proper to further lessen the same. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this court. Dismissed.