2016 (7) TMI 1667 - SC - Indian Laws

Forgery - misappropriation of loan amounts by forging their signatures and thumb impressions - HELD THAT - In the case of SUKHVINDER SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1994 (5) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that the direction given by the Tehsildar-Executive Magistrate to the accused to give his specimen writing was clearly unwarranted and, therefore, the said specimen writing could not be made use of during the trial and the report of handwriting expert was rendered of no consequence at all and could not be used against the accused to connect him with the crime. It was held that the direction to an accused to give specimen handwriting can only be issued by the court holding enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Court conducting the trial of such accused. High Court differentiated Sukhvider Singh's case from the case at hand on facts as also on law. High Court pointed out that in the matter at hand, admittedly, the authority-Executive Magistrate before whom the specimen signatures were given did not have the authority to enquire into or try the case. However, as observed by the High Court, during the course of investigation, PW-5 and PW-7 gave the specimen signatures willingly. In Sukhvinder Singh's case, specimen writing of accused was taken as per the direction of the tehsildar; whereas in the present case PW-5 and PW-7 were produced before the Executive Magistrate by the police with a request that their signatures be taken by the Executive Magistrate - Sukhvinder Singh's case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. High Court further relied on another decision rendered in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain's case wherein in the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held that procurement of specimen handwriting of accused by Naib Tehsildar was not in violation of Section 73 of Evidence Act. In the present case, the occurrence was of the year 1983-1986 and, therefore, the authority of the Executive Magistrate to take specimen signatures of PW-5 and PW-7 during the course of investigation cannot be disputed. In any event, even dehors opinion evidence of handwriting expert, there is clear oral evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 denying their signatures in the loan application and other documents. Affirming the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 and analysis of evidence, the High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal and found the Appellant guilty of the offences Under Sections 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of specimen signatures taken by the executive magistrate.
2. Sufficiency of evidence to prove forgery and misappropriation.
3. Validity of the acquittal by the trial court.
4. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Specimen Signatures Taken by the Executive Magistrate:
The primary issue revolved around whether the executive magistrate had the authority to take specimen signatures of witnesses during the investigation. The trial court discarded the handwriting expert's opinion, citing that the executive magistrate was not authorized to take such specimens as no proceedings were pending before him. The High Court differentiated the case from Sukhvinder Singh's precedent, noting that PW-5 and PW-7 voluntarily gave their specimen signatures during the investigation. The High Court relied on the decision in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain v. State of M.P. to assert that the exercise of power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not apply when the investigating officer approaches an executive magistrate for specimen signatures.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Forgery and Misappropriation:
The prosecution presented evidence that the appellant, while submitting loan applications on behalf of villagers, forged their signatures and thumb impressions. Witnesses PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, and PW-8 testified that they did not apply for loans or sign any documents. The handwriting expert, PW-20, confirmed that the disputed signatures matched those of the appellant, not the witnesses. The High Court found this evidence sufficient to prove that the appellant forged documents to misappropriate funds.

3. Validity of the Acquittal by the Trial Court:
The trial court acquitted the appellant, reasoning that the prosecution failed to provide legal evidence of forgery and conspiracy. It relied on the decision in Sukhvinder Singh, which the High Court found distinguishable. The High Court reversed the acquittal, emphasizing that the executive magistrate's lack of authority did not invalidate the voluntarily given specimen signatures. The High Court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the handwriting expert's evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses.

4. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed on the Appellant:
The High Court sentenced the appellant to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each offense under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's counsel argued for a reduction in the sentence, citing the appellant's age and health. However, the Court, considering the misuse of villagers' innocence to siphon public money, declined to reduce the sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeals and directing the appellant to serve the remaining sentence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the appellant's conviction for forgery and misappropriation of loan funds. The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the handwriting expert's opinion, sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt. The legality of the specimen signatures taken by the executive magistrate was upheld, distinguishing the case from previous precedents. The sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the remaining sentence.