9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1885 - HC - Indian LawsIdentification of handwriting in the cheque - Whether a Civil Court may not send a disputed handwriting/signature to a handwriting expert (under Section 45 of the Evidence Act) if the time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature is very large? - HELD THAT - Nature and extent of variation differs from person to person and, in its way, forms an important element in identification process. Writing variation is due to various factors external factors like writing position, writing instrument, care of execution, etc; physical and mental conditions like fatigue, intoxication, drug use, illness, nervousness, etc. These factors produce a varying degree of variation. The variation is commensurable in its degree with the intensity of the cause - Variation does not preclude identification of the writing. In fact, it forms an additional factor that serves to personalize the writing. Writing of an adult will show an obvious steady change with passage of time. In these circumstances provision of a whole set of signatures written over a period of years will prove of inestimable value to the document examiner - When serious illness occurs, a signature often undergoes a remarkable change in a very short period and if a suspect will is dated near the day of death, standard (admittedly genuine) signatures covering this period are essential if reliable evidence of the authenticity or otherwise of the signature is to be established. The gist of the experts opinion, emerging from the above Report, is to the effect that it is not always necessary to have contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison. However, as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritings/signatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast norm as to when comparison can or cannot be undertaken owing to the time lag between the two sets of handwritings/signatures. Various other factors would have to be taken into consideration, as opined by the experts - It is therefore not open to the Court to refuse to entertain an application seeking comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures on the ground of a long lapse of time between the two sets of handwritings/signatures. It is only too well-known that the appearance of a signature depends on many factors. The type of pen used, the ink, the quickness of the flow of the pen, the paper on which it was written, the place where the signature is put e.g., a signature on a rough paper would not be exactly the same as that on a smooth paper. In the same way, a signature written with a rough pen would not be the same as a signature with a good smooth-writing pen. Similarly if some smooth pad or some such object is used for resting the paper at the time of the signature, then that signature would be different from the signature put on a paper resting on a rough surface. No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case - merely because an application seeking expert opinion is filed belatedly, it would not automatically mean that the signatures sent for comparison are not contemporaneous. The matters may be posted before the Court concerned for adjudication on merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a civil court is barred from sending disputed handwriting/signature to a handwriting expert if the time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature is very long. 2. The stage at which an application for expert opinion on disputed handwritings/signatures should be made. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Time Gap Between Admitted and Disputed Signatures 1. Background and Reference to Full Bench: - A learned Judge directed that certain Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 1500 and 1572 of 2010) be placed before a larger Bench due to conflicting views on whether a long time gap between admitted and disputed signatures affects the validity of sending them to a handwriting expert. - The Division Bench opined that the matter should be considered by a Full Bench, leading to the involvement of connected C.R.P. Nos. 4098 and 5008 of 2010. 2. Expert Opinion Solicited: - The Full Bench sought expert opinion from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on three specific issues regarding the necessity and implications of contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison. 3. Expert Report Findings: - Necessity of Contemporaneous Handwritings/Signatures: It is not always necessary to have contemporaneous writings for comparison, but they are generally preferred for better evaluation. - Meaning and Measure of Contemporaneity: Contemporaneous means occurring at the same period. No specific measure could be assigned, but writings within 2-3 years before or after the disputed writing are considered satisfactory. - Reasons for Returning Documents: Experts often return documents for contemporaneous signatures due to the need for natural and comparable standards to reach a meaningful opinion. 4. Court's Conclusion: - The court concluded that there can be no hard and fast rule about the time gap definitively rendering comparison futile. Each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances, including the expert's capability to correlate the two sets of writings. Issue 2: Stage for Filing Application for Expert Opinion 1. Division Bench Reference: - The Division Bench also addressed the question of the appropriate stage for filing an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for expert opinion on disputed signatures. 2. Relevant Precedents: - ANNAPURNAMMA v. B. SANKARARAO (AIR 1960 AP 359): The learned Single Judge observed that comparing signatures made six years apart was not ideal but did not entirely preclude such comparison. - JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA FINANCIERS (2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB)): The Division Bench held that no specific time limit could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 for sending disputed signatures to an expert. 3. Court's Conclusion: - The Full Bench found no real conflict between the two precedents as they addressed different aspects. The view of the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED still holds, allowing courts discretion to entertain applications for expert opinion at any stage, depending on case-specific facts and circumstances. Final Judgment: - Discretion of the Court: It is within the court's discretion to seek expert opinion on disputed handwriting/signature comparisons, irrespective of a long time gap between the admitted and disputed signatures. - Desirability of Contemporaneous Signatures: Courts should encourage comparison of writings within a 2-3 year range to facilitate expert evaluation, but this is not a strict rule. - Expert's Role: Ultimately, it is for the expert to determine if the signatures can be compared for a viable opinion. - Stage of Application: The Division Bench's view in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED regarding the stage of filing applications under Section 45 continues to be valid, with no necessity for further examination by the Full Bench. The matters are directed to be posted before the concerned court for adjudication on merits.
|
