Uncategorized

Punjab-Haryana High Court Jasvir Singh And Ors vs M/S Hukam Chand Subhash Chander … on 31 October, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3777-2011 (O&M)                 Date of Decision: 31.10.2014 Jasvir Singh and others                       ….. Appellants                          Versus M/s Hukam Chand Subhash Chander Sood and others                                               …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P NAGRATH Before that the plaintiff-firm examined its own hand-writing expert, namely; Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-2), who compared that signatures of Avtar Singh on different entries with his standard signatures and it was found that the disputed signatures of Avtar Singh marked as Q6 to Q14 and standard signatures of Avtar Singh marked as S1 and S2 are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person.  In order to substantiate their plea they have examined  Finger and Handwriting Expert, who while stepping into the witness box as DW-1 submitted her report Ex. DW1/1. She has testified that entries in the bahies of plaintiff are fraudulent one. However, in the cross-examination she has totally shattered the case of defendant no. 3. She has admitted that entries are genuine one. She further adds that age and time of writing or ink cannot be determined by any technique. She has also stated that she did not examine the writing characteristic of the digit of the entry at mark Q-1 to Q-15 in this case. She has admitted to be correct that some of the entries examined by her are genuine according to her report. Re-touching and alteration or addition can be genuine RISHU KATARIA 2014.11.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-3777-2011 (O&M) -11- as well as fraudulent and this depends upon the matter in hand. She has further stated that there is no fraudulent addition or alteration on the entry dated 23.5.1998, 19.8.1998, 15.9.1998, 5.11.1998, 16.11.1998, 30.6.1998 and 5.6.1998. She has also categorically admitted that is there is any addition on the right side, then there must be some addition or alteration on sum total present on the left side in the entries of bahi khata to make the balance correct. There is a firm finding of fact by both the Courts below and the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that either there is misreading of evidence or that the material available with the Courts below was ignored. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is without merit and thus 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.

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 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 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 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 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 Bakkar Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR 1957/2015(O&M)                   Date of decision:04.09.2015 Bakar Singh and others         ………………….Petitioners                                    vs State of Punjab               ……………………Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH As regards comparison of disputed signatures with the standard specimen signatures, Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert while appearing as PW4 proved the fact of comparing the same and submission of his detailed report as Ex.PW4/2. He also proved photocopy of agreement, questioned signatures and thumb impressions as well as standard/specimen signatures and thumb impressions, as detailed in his reports. This witness,too was cross examined but nothing could be extracted either to shatter his evidence or his reports to prove that he had given a wrong report causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Gurmeet Singh vs Satgur Singh And Others on 17 September, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH                                                                             C.R.No.5628 of 2013         Date of Decision: September 17, 2013 GurmeetSingh                                … Petitioner                                                              Versus Satguru Singh and Others                   … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner – defendants have closed their evidence and have also examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff want to examine Kumar Virender 2013.09.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert in rebuttal evidence. The trial Court has observed that plaintiff has every right to rebut the defendants’ evidence on the issue onus of proof of which is on the defendant. Therefore, objections to the examination of expert witness are misconceived.

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.