9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearance through counsel and filed his written statement. Various objections were taken. One of the objections was that questioned documents were forged and fabricated and material alterations and additions had been made therein. On pleadings of parties, issues were framed and parties led their respective evidence. The petitioner-defendant examined V.B. Bhatnagar, handwriting and fingerprint expert in his evidence and the respondent-plaintiff examined Anil Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. Since the reports of both these experts were contradictory, the petitioner-defendant moved application for sending the questioned documents to the SFSL for comparison of alleged signatures of the petitioner-defendant and also alleged alteration and addition in the questioned documents, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.05.2013. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that opinions of two handwriting experts are contradictory. The handwriting expert of the petitioner categorically stated that the signatures over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed or written document in question can be proved (i) by calling a witness who wrote the document, (ii) by admission of a person against whom the document is tendered and (iii) by calling a person as witness who saw the document being written/signed. The first two methods are excluded as the scribe of the questioned documents is an interested party. Third method is not feasible as more often there is no eye-witness who will be only seeing the writing or signing of the documents and have no other role to play regarding the said document. Thereafter, the only method for proving handwriting and signature is as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Act ). Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73 of the Act are relevant to determine the questions, as arise in the present petition, which read as under: 45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare them with the writing of questioned documents. When the opinion of the expert has been taken, the Court may verify the opinion or to test its reliability proceed under Section 73 of the Act to make the comparison by itself. Under Section 67 of the Act, the execution of a document can be established by proving the identity of handwriting or signature on the questioned documents. The problem arises due to conflicting opinions of the experts. The fundamental problem with the expert opinion on handwriting is the nonscientific nature of expert opinion on comparison. While comparing handwriting samples, number of variables are compared. The variable on which the experts base their opinions are only evidence of some tendencies which can also be affected by numerous extraneous factors, such as state of mind, haste, self-consciousness, intoxication, nature of the paper, type of pen etc. Generally, two methods related to identification of handwriting are Graphoscopy, which is study of shape of letter and the manner of their re-production and Graphometry, which is the measu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch expert examination, the Court cannot for sure accept the signature of the author denying it. In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 262 : 2008(2) RAJ (R.A.J.) 315 : 2008(4) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: When there is a positive denial by the person who is said to have affixed his finger impression and where the finger impression in the disputed document is vague or smudgy or not clear, making it difficult for comparison, the Court should hesitate to venture a decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger impression. Further, even in cases where the court is constrained to take up such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. The Court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or routine glance or perusal. 11. In view of Tarak Nath (supra), the Court is not an handwriting expert. The Court does it only through its visual experience. Ordinarily, the Court should not take upon itself the responsibility of comparing signatures when disputed, as in such matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Courts, the procedure is adversarial as opposed to the inquisitorial. The role of a Judge is to preside over the proceedings and rule on the points of law. The expert's overriding duty is to the Court, not to who call him. The opinion of the expert is very important and the court has to determine the lis keeping in view his opinion. Any lapse or mistake due to lack of skill by the expert can lead to grave and manifest injustice to a party. Keeping this in view, this Court is of the opinion that since the opinions of handwriting and fingerprint expert who examine the questioned documents, thumb impressions, signatures, forged documents etc. is very important and has a direct bearing on the credibility of evidence. The need of hour is to control, regulate, certify, accredit and devise means for registering expert witnesses who appear in Courts. The Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of the respective States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory. Chandigarh are directed to delve deep in the field and come out with viable mechanism to facilitate the justice dispensation by remedying the prevalent maladies/handicaps in system and the responsible officer of the Departments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
