9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise authorities. At that time it was found that there were gold ornaments found in the house of 2326 grams. When asked to explain the source of the gold jewellery, it was stated that appellant received gold jewellery of 105 tolas towards her stridhan on 15th March, 1975 during partition of the immovable and movable properties that took place between her husband, his brothers and their father. The appellant further stated that out of 105 tolas gold received by the appellant as such, 95 tolas of gold was said to have been gifted by her ITO her three minor daughters. The jewellery so gifted was received on behalf of the donees by their father i.e. the husband of the appellant. In support of the said gifts, three letters dt. 26th Sept., 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecuted on the same dates they were purported to have been executed and they were not written after 1972 as held by the departmental authorities. Mr. Ramakrishnaiah has further contended that the unsupported evidence of the handwriting expert on which the departmental authorities placed implicit reliance should not avail against the denial on oath of the writers of the documents. Where there is direct and trustworthy evidence of the scribes, so runs the argument of the learned counsel, it is not safe to rely on the expert evidence. It is also contended that the bunch of correspondence entered into by the WTO and the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents ought to have been furnished to the appellant and the failure on the part of the WT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishnaiah himself, the husband of the assessee and the father of the minor children. As stated earlier, the three documents were referred to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and the Handwriting Expert gave his opinion which extracted in the order of the WTO. It is manifest from the opinion of the Handwriting Expert that the three documents were written only after 1972 and not in the years they were said to have been written. It appears that the letter was issued on 17th June, 1976 enclosing therein an extract of the opinion given by the Examiner on the above three letters and appellant was asked to lodge her reply. For some reason or other, the appellant did not choose to file any reply. Now the appellant cannot be heard to sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Gujarat, Appellant vs. Vinaya chandra Chhota Lal Pathi Respondent (2). The Supreme Court held that the opinion of handwriting expert is also relevant in view of s. 45 of the Evidence Act, but that is not conclusive. It has also been held that the sole evidence of handwriting expert is not sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. There was no dispute in the case on hand that the evidence which induced the lower authorities to come to the conclusion as they did was the sole evidence of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. No direct evidence or circumstantial evidence was forthcoming to corroborate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
