Author name: admin

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before :- H.R. Sodhi, J. R.S.A. No. 1358 of 1962. D/d. 14.02.1969 Hukam Singh and others – Appellants Versus Smt. Udham Kaur – Respondent For the Appellants :- Mr. C.D. Dewan and N.S. Bhatia, Advocates. For the Respondent :- Mr. Parkash Chand Jain and G.C. Mittal, Advocates. A. Finger-print expert – Evidence of – Evidentiary value – Issue regarding the validity of a document which purports to bear thumb impressions of an executant when those thumb impressions are denied – Evidence of thumb impression expert bound to be of great value – Science of finger-print more exact than that relating to hand-writing – Cases of comparison of finger-prints – Points of similarity and difference easily discernible – Courts must apply their mind properly to the evidence of experts in such cases. B. Evidence – Approbation and reprobation – Trial Court letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of a witness made in the criminal proceedings – Allowing the same to be proved by himself – Procedure not correct – He should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement made by him in the committing Court – Parties themselves allowing certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence – Cannot urge later either in the same Court or in a Court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible – To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to approbate and reprobate.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTBefore :- G. Bhavani Prasad, J.Civil Revision Petition No. 1832 of 2010. D/d. 2.8.2010.Thumu Srikanth – PetitionerVersusAkula Babu – RespondentFor the Petitioner :-Ms.Lalitha Chouhan representing and Ms. G. Dhanajai, Counsel.For the Respondent :- None appeared.Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 45 and 73 – Opinion of Expert – Obtaining of, under Section 45 of the Act, to come to a just conclusion in spite of power of Court under Section 73 of the Act to undertake comparison – Defendant denied execution of registered Sale Deed – Petitioner-plaintiff made an application to obtain his signatures and thumb impressions and those of defendant in open court and get them examined and compared by Regional Forensic Science Laboratory along with disputed signatures and thumb impression in the sale deed – Application dismissed by lower Court holding that the Court itself can make such comparison under Section 73 of the Act – Challenged – Held, Court is not technically trained or qualified to indulge in such comparison – Though the opinion of Expert is mere opinion evidence, in a case like the present one, Court cannot, by itself, come to a just conclusion by making the required comparison – Petition premature – Expert opinion would be more helpful to both parties to lead appropriate evidence and to the Court to come to appropriate conclusion – Impugned order set aside – Application allowed – Direction given to obtain expert opinion as sought.

Vira Rani v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 644368RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTBefore:- Sandeep Mehta, J.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2343 of 2014. D/d. 01.10.2014.Smt. Vira Rani – PetitionerVersusState of Rajasthan – RespondentFor the Petitioner :- Mr. KartikLodha, Advocate.For the State :- Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 General Rules (Civil), Rule 181 – Petitioner aggrieved of order of rejection of application of handing for original agreement to sale for purpose of examination by forensic science laboratory – In criminal case, there is a specific allegation that the accused forged the document and then filed the same in the Civil Court, the original document has to be analyzed by the Hand writing Expert and the comparison of the signature/ thumb impression etc. has to be done by the expert for purpose of the ends of justice – Direction issued to civil court to hand over the original document to the police for investigation – Petition allowed.

2006(1) PLJ 84 :2006(2) Cur LJ 282 : 2006(19) R.C.R.(Civil) 122 Harbans Singh v. Jagir Singh, (P&H) PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before :- M.M. Kumar, J. Civil Revision No. 1605 of 1999. D/d. 22.2.2006 Harbans Singh &Ors. – Petitioners Versus Jagir Singh &Ors. – Respondents Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 – Thumb impression on a photocopied document – Admissibility in evidence – Held, the best evidence available cannot be shut out on the preposterous plea that the depth of the thumb impression on a photocopied document could not be fathomed or that such a petition is not maintainable – Petition allowed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Dharam Singh vs Labh Singh And Ors on 17 July, 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.1271 of 2016                  Date of Decision: 17.07.2017 Dharam  Singh                                  ……Petitioner                     Versus Labh Singh and others                            … Respondents CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH SIGNATURE/THUMB IMPRESSION CAN BE COMPARED FROM PHOTO COPY In view of observations made by this Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. Jagir Singh and others, 2006(1) PLJ 84, the photocopy of the document can be subjected to expert opinion, if the signatures/thumb impressions appearing on the document are apparent. The best evidence available with the party cannot be shut out on the preposterous plea that the comparison cannot be made on the basis of photocopy of the document.

2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 296: 2006(1) PLR 146 : 2006 AIR (Punjab) 39 : 2005(3) LJR 372 : 2006(1) CivCC 368 : 2005(2) HLR 736 : 2006(39) AIC 235 : 2006(1) HRR 220 Daljit Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 85267 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTBefore :- M.M. Kumar, J.Regular Second Appeal No. 1955 of 2005. D/d. 28.7.2005 Daljit Singh and others – AppellantsVersusSukhwinder Singh and others – Respondents “Furthermore, the defendant No. 1 has also examined DW-8 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta , Document Expert, who after comparing the thumb impressions of Harnam Kaur appearing on the above said sale deeds with her thumb impressions on the Will D-1 opined that the disputed thumb impressions on the Will Ex. D-1 and the standard thumb impressions appearing on the sale-deeds Ex. D-3 and Ex. DW-4/A are identical with each other and have been affixed by one and the same person. Having examined the report of the Expert DW-8 Anil Kumar Gupta , I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. He also elaborated each and every point in his report Ex. DW8/A for forming his opinion. Thus, the opinion of this document export is a relevant piece of evidence and also proves the execution of the Will. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants stand repelled”. It is further appropriate to mention that the document expert Anil Kumar Gupta DW-8 has also opined that the thumb impressions on the will are of one and the same person who had thumb marked the admitted document Ex. D-3 like sale-deeds Ex. D-3 and DW4/A. The argument with regard to document expert Anil Kumar Gupta cannot be accepted merely because in some other cases his credibility has been doubted.Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the evidence of the expert was liable to be discarded.In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Before :- R. Subhash Reddy, J. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 314 and 317 of 2013. D/d. 14.06.2013. Rytu Depot, Draksharamam, East Godavari District and other – Petitioner Versus Sri Rajyalakshmi Agencies, Ramachandrapuram and others – Respondent For the Petitioner :-Mr.K.Chidambaram, Advocate. For the Respondent :- Mr.J.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 15-Evidence Act, 872, Section 45- Expert opinion on signature – Validity of – Instant Case, Respondents filed the above suit for recovery of money based on certain transaction against the petitioners – One who is related to the petitioners has signed on several invoices and the same were filed into the court- Petitioners stating that the same are forged one – Respondents have filed the present applications seeking to send the disputed signature for expert opinion, for comparison of the same with his admitted signatures – Present revision against the same – Held, signature on a carbon copy of a document can be looked into for comparison as it is not a case of ascertaining the age of the document or ink – As the case of respondents is based on those invoices signed by a third party to suit who is admittedly related to petitioners, nothing wrong in the order passed to call him as a witness – It is for the court to decide to summon such third party as a witness or not. No merit in the contention raised by petitioners- Revision dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Surinder Singh vs Santokh Singh & Ors on 14 October, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND                                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.                                        RSA NO.5331 OF 2014 (O&M)                                    Date of decision : 14.10.2014 Surinder Singh                                  … Appellant                              Versus Santokh Singh and others                                                   …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Will dated 23.11.1962 (Exhibit P-2) being a 30 years old when the certified copy of the same in the form of secondary evidence was tendered in evidence. The secondary evidence was allowed by the court. The attesting witnesses of the Will in question, need not to be examined as both the witnesses have since died, and accordingly, permission was taken to lead secondary evidence relating to Will from the Court and the learned counsel for the defendants did not raise any objection in respect thereof. Therefore, certified copy of the Will is fully permissible and lawful to draw presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and Will is per se admissible in law. Learned counsel cites 2011(1) CCC 497 titled as PD Navghare and another Vs. S.D.Chachad and others, to submits that Will is 30 years old, and is admissible under Section 90 of the Evidence Act because the same is being produced from the proper custody, and is free from suspicion. Central Government Act Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.—Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.—Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This Explanation applies also to section 81. Illustrations (a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody is proper. (b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper. (c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession, which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody is proper. STATE AMENDMENTS Uttar Pradesh.—(a) Renumber section 90 as sub-section (1) thereof; (b) in sub-section (1) as so renumbered, for the words “thirty years”, substitute the words “twenty years”; (c) after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, insert the following sub-section, namely:— “(2) Where any such document as is referred to in sub-section (1) was registered in accordance with the law relating to registration of documents and a duly certified copy thereof is produced, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, it is that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested”. (d) After section 90, insert the following section, namely:— “90A. (1) Where any registered document or a duly certified copy thereof or any certified copy of a document which is part of the record of a Court of Justice, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the original was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. (2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of any document which is the basis of a suit or of defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written statement.” The Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 90 will also apply to this section; [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 24 of 1954, sec. 2 and Sch. (w.e.f. 30-11-1954).] COMMENTS Presumption Assuming that the document is more than thirty years old and comes from proper custody, there would be no presumption that contents of the same are true; Mohinuddin v. President, Municipal Committee, Khargone, AIR 1993 MP 5.

1979 AIR (SC) 1708: 1979 CriLJ 1386 : 1980(1) SCC 487 : 1979 SCC(Cri) 920 : 1979 MLJ (Criminal) 222 : 1979 Cri. App. R (SC) 345 : 1979 UJ (SC) 718 : 1980(1) SCJ 126 : 1980 SCCriR 108 Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 105024 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before :- S. MurtazaFazl Ali and A.D. Koshal, JJ. Criminal Appeals Nos. 275 of 1973 and 84 of 1975. D/d. 20.4.1979. Jaspal Singh – Appellant Versus    State of Punjab – Respondent   AND Jindra and another – Appellants            Versus State of Punjab – Respondent A. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 – Evidence – Expert evidence – Thumb impression on the statement – Science of identifying thumb impression is an exact scienceand does not admit of any mistake or doubt.

REPORTS UP HELD BY HON’BLE COURTS 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 favor 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.