Uncategorized

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 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.

            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.

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

            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

Permission given to one party to obtain opinion of handwritten expert – cannot be refused to opposite party to produce expert in rebuttel evidence. 2005 (3) RCR – 166 (Raj.)

Punjab-Haryana High Court Vijay Kumar Malhotra vs Sukhchain Singh & Ors on 12 October, 2017 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-10135 of 2017    Date of decision:12.10.2017 Vijay Kumar Malhotra                       …..Petitioner                                vs. Sukhchain Singh and others                 …..Respondents Coram:       Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh Therefore, from the above, I find merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. Anil Kumar Gupta, Hand-writing Expert is allowed to be examined by the prosecution. 3 of 4 Cr. Misc. No.M-10135 of 2017 [4] However, it is made clear that only two effective opportunities will be given for examination by the trial Court qua this witness. Punjab-Haryana High Court The Punjab State Cooperative … vs M/S Lakhpat Rai Rice And General … on 6 February, 2020 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh                           RSA No. 9 of 2019 (O&M)                           Date of Decision:6.2.2020 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited                                                —Appellant                    versus M/s Lakhpat Rai Rice & General Mills and another                                                —Respondents Coram:      Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal the respondents-defendants examined Anil Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints expert to say that affidavits Ex. P5 to P7 were not executed by Darshana Rani. Taking into consideration findings of the first Appellate Court, I do not find any reason to intervene in concurrent findings recorded by the courts. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. As the appeal has been decided on 2 of 3 merits, application for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is of academic relevance.

            If the court is satisfied that there is no trick photography and the photographs are above suspicion, the photographs can be received in evidence. But the evidence on photographs to prove the handwriting can only be received if the original cannot be obtained and the photographs reproduction is faithful and not faked or false. Lakhsmipati Choria Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1958 SC 938.             The Opinion of handwriting Expert should not be rejected because it is solely on the photographs as the photographs must be taken to represent the condition of original correctly.             The Expert opinion is admissible only when accompanied by the data and reasoning tending to that inference. State of Vindhya Pardesh Vs Krishna Nand AIR 1953 VP 21

Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Harbans Kaur And Another vs Surjan Singh on 26 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3862 of 2008                 Date of Decision: 26.8.2009 Smt. Harbans Kaur and another          ……Appellants                             Versus Surjan Singh                            ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Bahal Singh died on 10.8.1987. To prove the Will dated 4.6.1987, the plaintiffs have examined Bachan Singh, the attesting witness of the Will. PW2 is the scribe of the Will. Though the plaintiffs have examined Handwriting Expert as PW5, but his report is restricted in respect of the Will dated 17.6.1981 (Exhibit P.1) and Will dated 9.4.1986 (Exhibit D.1). On the other hand, the Will dated 9.4.1986 Exhibit D.1 is proved by examining Ramesh Kumar Chawla, document writer. PW2 Pritam Singh is the attesting witness, whereas DW5 Anil Kumar Gupta, compared thumb impressions of Bahal SiThus, there is only report of DW5-Anil Kumar Gupta, to the effect that Will dated 4.6.1987 is not proved to be executed. The finding recorded by the Courts below that the Will dated 4.6.1987 is not proved, is a finding of fact. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

Evidence of identification unsupported by photographs is nothing more than an expression of opinion. State of Guj. Vs Adam Fateh Moh. 1971-SCC (Cri) 381