Uncategorized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.                                                                 CM No.2006-C of 2014 in/and                                                                  RSA No.3821 of 2012 (O&M)                                                                   Date of decision: 17.02.2014 Bhola Singh                               —–Appellant(s)                              Vs. Leela Ram                                 —–Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG The testimony of DW-1 could inspire confidence, if the same would have been corroborated by other evidence. At least, he should have examined some finger print expert to rebut the testimony of PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and Finger Print Expert. If the plaintiff had obtained his signatures fraudulently on the agreement Ex.P1, in that event, it was required for the defendant to report the matter to the police, but he had not done so. His complacence and tacitness in this regard would candidly prove the execution of agreement Ex.P1 and receipt of imprest of Rs.1,25,000/- by the appellant from the respondent. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that agreement to sell dated 4.1.2008 has been proved on record. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the appellant is not proved, as the agreement dated 4.1.2008 bears his signatures, whereas his own case is that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression. Even PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has proved his report, according to which, the disputed signatures of the appellant on the agreement in question tally with his standard signatures. Not only this, the appellant has even denied his signatures on the vakalatnama and the written statement. Thus, the conduct of the appellant itself shows his intentions. The findings have been recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence and are duly supported from the evidence on record.

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.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Ranjeet Kumar Alias Ranjeet Singh vs Arya Samaj on 7 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6773 of 2009 (O&M)              Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Ranjeet Kumar alias Ranjeet Singh   …..Petitioner(s) Versus AryaSamaj,Jaitu                      ……Respondent(s) CR No.7831 of 2009 (O&M) CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG He also deposed regarding the same documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17, as proved by AW(1) Raj Paul Dod. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert was examined as AW(3), who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.AW(3)/A. He also proved his report Ex.AW (3)/1 and negatives Ex.AW(3)/2 to Ex.AW(3)/11. He deposed that he examined and compared the disputed signatures alleged to be of Ranjeet Kumar appearing at mark Q1 on the writing dated 14.06.1995 and at mark Q2 on the rent receipt dated 17.01.1998, at mark Q3 on the rent receipt dated 24.4.1998, at mark Q4 on the rent receipt dated 15.6.1998, at mark Q5 on the rent receipt dated 21.7.1998 at mark Q6 on the rent receipt dated 15.9.1998, at mark Q7 on the rent receipt dated 12.1.1999 and at mark Q8 on the rent receipt dated 7.5.1999 with the standard signatures of Ranjeet Kumar appearing at mark R1 on the Vakalatnama and mark R2 on the service of the summons. In his opinion, the disputed signatures marks Q1 to Q8 and standard signatures of Ranjeet Kumar mark R1 and R2 are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person. Even before this Court, the respondent has produced the original carbon copies/counter foils of the said receipts. Therefore, no exception can be taken regarding the admissibility of these receipts before this Court. In view of the said findings, judgments in Charan Singh’s case (supra) and Karnail Singh’ case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. No other point is urged. No merits. Both the revision petitions are dismissed

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.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Amrik Singh vs M/S Hind Iron Store on 20 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2592 of 2010 (O&M)           Date of decision : 20.9.2011                              … Amrik Singh                            …………….Appellant                               vs. M/s Hind Iron Store                  ……………..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the case file. The sole controversy in the present lis revolves around the receipt of 250 bags of cement by defendant-appellant and issuance of receipt by the defendant. To prove the said fact, plaintiff has appeared as his own witness and he also examined hand writing expert. The bill Exhibit P-1 alongwith entries in the accounts book Exhibits P-3 and P-4 have been placed on the file. Besides this, notice Exhibit P-5, postal receipt Exhibit P-6 and acknowledgment Exhibit P-7 have been placed on the file. In rebuttal, the defendant-appellant has suffered a self serving statement and has not led any evidence. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has been able to prove that 250 bags of cement were supplied to the defendant under the bill Exhibit P-1, which was acknowledged vide receipt Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff has also proved the said fact by proving the account books. The legal notice was served upon the defendant, which was duly received as per acknowledgment Exhibit P-7. No reply has been sent. So, in these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the receipt Exhibit P-2 and supplying the bags of cement does not call for any interference. The appellant has simply challenged the factual aspect in the regular second appeal and that cannot be allowed in view of Section 100 CPC. Both the Courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the case argued before them. There is nothing on the file that judgments of both the Courts below is a result of mis- reading and mis-interpreting of evidence on the file. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant stands determined against him. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

(Very important being related to forgery over already exiting thumb impression/signature as sometime documents are prepared by writing body writings lateron above the already existing thumb impressions/signatures obtained on a blank paper and the body writing show material inconsistency and in the said case report was given by Anil Kumar Gupta by giving observations that the bodywritings are showing material inconsistency showing that body writing is written lateron above the already existing thumb impression/signatures) Punjab-Haryana High Court Sona Singh Etc vs Kakka Singh Etc on 25 March, 2019 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1344 of 2002(O&M)             Date of Decision:25.3.2019 Sona Singh @ Santa Singh and others              —Appellants                                  vs. Kakka Singh and others                            —Respondents RSA No. 2056 of 2002(O&M) Kakka Singh and others                             —Appellants                                  vs. Sona Singh @ Santa Singh and others               —Respondents RSA No. 1422 of 2011(O&M) Santa Singh @ Sona and others                      —Appellants                                  vs. Kakka Singh                                        —Respondent Coram:     Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal                     To rebut evidence of the plaintiffs, one of the legal 4 of 20 representatives of defendant No. 5 appeared in the witness box and they examined Gurukaran Sher Singh Sodhi DW2, Joginder Singh DW3, Narinder Kumar Deed Writer DW4, scribe of Will dated 25.1.1990 Balbir Chand DW5 Senior Clerk from office of Financial Commissioner, Punjab S.P.Kamboj DW6 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Forensic Expert DW7.                     Perusal of recitals in the Will would reveal that the Will was executed on account of the testator being satisfied with the services of his wife and to compensate her for the same. This recital in the Will gets falsified and belied in view of statement of Sona Singh @ Santa Singh plaintiff No. 1 as he stated in his cross examination that Labh Singh and Matto Bai had been maintaining separate residence. The appellate Court, on a detailed consideration of various circumstances highlighted by counsel 11 of 20 for the respondents therein, has rightly reversed findings of the trial court in respect of Will dated 14.10.1978. Counsel for the appellants has failed to advance any argument much less meaningful to convince this Court that circumstances noticed by the Appellate court are either not material and relevant or have not been rightly appreciated in the light of materials on record. In this view of the matter, findings of the Appellate Court in respect of Will dated 14.10.1978 need affirmation and ordered accordingly.                     On examination of the Will with naked eye, it is sufficiently clear that space in the upper 8 or 9 lines is more as compared to the next 14 of 20 lower 8 or 9 lines. The space in the last four lines is too less as compared to the upper portion. Had this document been typed in a normal and natural course, spacing between the lines would have been uniform and not inconsistent as is visible in the disputed Will. There was no need for the typist to decrease or change spacing between the lines had the thumb impression been not present prior to body writing. The Will has been typed in an abnormal and unnatural course. Not only this, the position of thumb impression on the first page of the Will is not below name of the executant whereas the thumb impressions of the alleged attesting witness are below their names and particulars. Above all, it has been mentioned in the last line that in the presence of witnesses and after hearing and understanding, left thumb impression has been affixed. If the executant had affixed the thumb impression after completion of body writing of the Will and the same was read over and understood by the testator, there was no occasion for the scribe/typist to mention that left thumb impression has been affixed after hearing and understanding the contents in the presence of attesting witnesses. Irregular spacing between the lines, the position of thumb impression of the alleged testator when examined in the light of there being no explanation as to why the Will not got registered on 25.1.1990 if testator alongwith attesting witnesses was present in Tehsil Office on that date, goes a long way to conclude that the testator was not present on 25.1.1990 and this Will has been prepared on blank thumb impressions already existing on the paper used for preparing the Will. Neither the Appellate Court nor the trial court has examined the aspect of difference of dates of execution and registration from the aforesaid point of view.                     In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, RSA Nos. 1344 of 2002 and 1422 of 2011 are dismissed. On the other hand, RSA No. 2056 of 2002 is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

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.

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.

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.