9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re prosecuted for criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and personation. They were alleged to have conspired together to forge applications for permits for corrugated and plain iron sheets in the names of non-existing persons. It was alleged against some of them that in the prosecution of the conspiracy they had committed the several offences above mentioned. Fakhruddin was one such person. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted only three and acquitted the rest. They were Fakhruddin, one Ali Hussain and a cartman by name Anandilal. On appeal the High Court acquitted Ali Hussain and Anandilal. Thus of the seven original accused, Fakhruddin alone has suffered conviction. 3. Fakhruddin like some of the other accused who have since been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed, the police arrived and arrested Fakhruddin. It was then found on investigation that Fakhruddin had presented several applications in other fictitious names and the charge in this case is in respect of five Exs. P. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 24 which stood respectively in the names of Manakchand, Surojmal, Hiralal s/o Chote lal, Munnalal, Gulabchand who were all fictitious persons. 5. The prosecution case depends upon the proof of forgery of these applications in the names of fictitious persons with a view to cheating and this necessarily involved the offence of personation. All the offences were said to be part of a big conspiracy in which the several accused in the case were said to be involved. The Sessions Judge, accepting the evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , persons wishing to take advantage need not have conspired for they could act on their own and the similarity of method followed by them does not establish a planned Operation by consensus. The charge of conspiracy must fail and Fakhruddin is acquitted of that charge and the sentence passed under that charge against him is set aside. 8. As to forgery, there is no doubt that the High Court found it in entirety on the evidence of the handwriting expert. Mr. Kohli has naturally made a point of this faulty approach and has drawn our attention to several cases of this Court and a ruling of a divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court. In Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0107/1956 : AIR (1957) SC 381, 388 it is observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r nor. Lastly, in Rudragouda Venkangouda Patil v. Basangouda Danappagouda Patil MANU/MH/0134/1937 : AIR (1938) Bom 257 it is held that 'comparison of the handwriting by the count with the other documents not challenged as fabricated, upon its own initiative and without the guidance of an expert and even with it is at all times hazardous and recognizably inconclusive. 9. Mr. Kohli said that these cases establish that the evidence of the handwriting expert is worthless and the court cannot compare the writing for itself and the only possible evidence should have been of one who either saw Fakhruddia write or was familiar with his writing. We had sent for the writings which are disputed and the writings with which they were compared w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervations and experience. In either case the court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed ones, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the case. He only says that the persons whose signatures were made in the register, signed it and this leaves the matter at large. There is however proof that the other writing was made by Fakhruddin the Appellant. The Sub-Inspector P.W. 33 took the precaution of having two witnesses P.Ws. No. 16 and 27. Of these P.W. 16 did not identify the Appellant as the writer but the other P.W. 27 did. Ex. P. 61 therefore furnishes the necessary comparative material. 13. Mr. Kholi said that the expert took both Exs. P. 56 and 61 into account to reach his conclusion that the disputed writing was that of the Appellant and he might have been persuaded to this view on the strength of Ex. P. 56. This is not a correct reading of the evidence. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
