Uncategorized

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 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 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 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 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 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 Bhola Singh vs Leela Ram on 16 August, 2017 Civil Revision No.2113 of 2016                              1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH                               Civil Revision No.2113 of 2016                               Date of Decision: 16.08.2017 BHOLA SINGH                           ……Petitioner        Vs LEELA RAM                               ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH  On one hand judgment-debtor has examined himself as AW-1 and one Jagdeep Singh as AW-2 in support of his case. The decree-holder has examined himself as DH-1 and one Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DH-2. The expert has opined that the signatures appearing on the alleged compromise are not that of the decree-holder. The executing Court has doubted the genuineness of the compromise in view of the fact that though the same was allegedly recorded during pendency of the execution, but still the same was not executed before the Court. [4]. In view of attending circumstances, I find no reason to differ with the observations made by the trial Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbans Kaur And Anr vs Atma Singh And Ors on 28 October, 2014 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh                                                        R.S.A.No.2670 of 2012              Date of decision: 28.10.2014 Harbans Kaur and another                        ……Appellants                              Versus Atma Singh and others                         …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH  P-5 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert also deposed in confirmation of due execution of Will as the disputed thumb impressions marked Q-1 to Q-3 were found identical with thumb impressions of Bhag Singh marked S-1 and S-2 being affixed by one and the same person. Similarly, he has also given the information that the disputed thumb impression mark S-1 and standard thumb impressions of Hazara Singh mark H-1 and H-2 are proved to be affixed by one and the same person. The witness has also given an information that the disputed signatures mark D-1 and D-2 and standard signatures of Jarnail Singh mark A-1 to A-3 are also similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by ANITA DEVI one and the same person. Since the plaintiff is not found to be in possession though, he has been declared to be owner as such, therefore, the plaintiff is held entitled to possession qua his share in the capacity of co-sharer and the defendants have been rightly restrained from creating any charge over the property in any manner. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is found to be meritless. No substantial question of law is involved for consideration of this Court. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE October 28, 2014 anita ANITA DEVI 2014.11.19 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Punjab-Haryana High Court Santosh vs Vinod Kumar And Others on 3 December, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2013 Date of Decision: 03.12.2013 Santosh                                   ….Appellant                              versus Vinod Kumar and others                     ….Respondents CORAM:        HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA               HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH he prosecutrix has been confronted with her letters written to accused-Vinod, which carry expression of emotional ties and love relationship and the handwriting and finger print expert DW4 Anil Kumar Gupta has proved her writings which were compared with her standard writing and signatures, are matter which have their own affect The learned trial Court had given a well reasoned finding and has fully discussed the evidence brought on the record. We are, thus, not inclined to show any indulgence in granting leave to appeal and which as such is declined. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge (Fateh Deep Singh) Judge 03.12.2013 neenu Verma Neenu 2013.12.09 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Punjab-Haryana High Court Manjit Kaur @ Taro vs Jagtar Singh on 3 May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1665 of 2012(O&M)           Date of Decision:-03.05.2012 Manjit Kaur @ Taro.                         ……Appellant.                                    Versus Jagtar Singh.                               ……Respondent. CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:-   Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.                                 *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Plaintiff had further examined Anil Kumar Gupta (Handwriting and Finger Print Expert) who had proved on record his report Ex.PW-3/1 whereby it was mentioned that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell were of the defendant. In this scenario, I have no hesitation in holding that the agreement to sell is proved on record by the plaintiff and thus the onus had shifted upon defendant/appellant to prove the fact that the agreement to sell was not RSA No.1665 of 2012(O&M) #4# executed by him. This fact is further proved from the circumstance that in rebuttal to the report of the handwriting expert examined by the plaintiff, no handwriting expert has been examined by the defendant so as to prove the fact that the thumb impression did not belong to him. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant after fully knowing the contents of the same.