AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.20, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur in the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 held that from comparison of the signatures, it is apparent that the disputed signatures are
of the hands of the petitioner.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and Others, reported as A.I.R. 2008 S.C.
1541, wherein the Supreme Court held as under :-
“14. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relates to 'opinion of experts'. It provides inter alia that when the court has to form an opinion as
to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in questions as to identity or handwriting or
finger impressions are relevant facts. Section 73 provides that in order to ascertain whether a finger impression is that of the person by whom it
purports to have been made, any finger impression admitted to have been made by that person, may be compared with the one which is to be proved.
These provisions have been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court.
14.1) In The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram [1979 (2) SCC 158] this Court held that a court does not exceed its power under section 73 if it
compares the disputed writing with the admitted writing of the party so as to reach its own conclusion. But this Court cautioned :
Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the
evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a
handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is
therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the
two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.
The caution was reiterated in O. Bharathan vs. K. Sudhakaran 1996 (2) SCC 704. Again in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka [1997 (7)
SCC 110] referring to section 73 of the Evidence Act, this Court held : ""The section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made.
However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or
by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.
As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed
signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this
does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the dispute signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under
Section 73 of the Act.
14.2) In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 1980 (1) SCC 704, this Court indicated the circumstances in which the Court may itself compare
disputed and admitted writings, thus :
The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without
force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether
a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the
hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and
the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the
plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusions. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the
court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some
authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without
other evidence.
The decision in Murari Lal (supra) was followed in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank & Ors. [2003 (3) SCC 583].
While there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/ signature/finger
impression, such comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that
there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an
opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the
same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance.
Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb
impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb
impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position to
identify the characteristics of finger prints, the court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the
disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal. The decision in Muralilal (supra)
and Lalit Popli (supra) should not be construed as laying a proposition that the court is bound to compare the disputed and admitted finger impressions
and record a finding thereon, irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger impression. 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 impressions. 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. Necessarily, the judgment should contain the reasons for any conclusion based on
comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record a finding thereon. The court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or
routine glance or perusal.â€
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2008), decided on 30.04.2015.
Issue notice to the respondents, for 01.12.2018.
Meanwhile, the further proceedings in the Court below shall remain stayed.