Bhag Singh vs State of Punjab

R.P. Nagrath, J.—By this common order, CRM-M-15579 of 2014 and CRM-M-21126 of 2014 are being disposed of as prayer made in both these petitions is for quashing of order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the trial Magistrate declining the prayer of petitioners for sending original agreement dated 07.07.2005 to India Security Press, Nasik for verification of the stamps.

Facts of the case are extracted from CRM-M-15579 of 2014.

On the complaint of respondent No. 2 FIR No. 166 dated 12.08.2010 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC was registered at Police Station Machiwara. Jagtar Singh-petitioner in CRM-M-21126 of 2014 is an employee of Electricity Board but he is engaged in the business of property dealing. Jagtar Singh is stated to have induced the complainant to agree to purchase 1 kanal and 1 marla of the land in their joint names but it was ultimately found that the document was got prepared by Jagtar Singh in favour of his brother Bhag Singh-petitioner in CRM-M-15579 of 2014. There are allegations of forgery of signatures of complainant on the document ultimately got prepared by Jagtar Singh in the name of Bhag Singh.

The dispute presently relates to an agreement dated 07.07.2005 executed by the petitioners in favour of Bhag Singh complainant, which was entered into settling the whole controversy between the parties. The trial is, however, at the advanced stage.

The petitioner moved an application dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P-4) before the trial Court with a prayer to direct the complainant to produce original agreement dated 07.07.2005 and to send the stamp papers of agreement to Deputy Controller of Stamps, India Security Press, Central Stamp Depot, Nasik for showing that these stamp papers were not in fact issued by the concerned department in July, 2005.

It was also the case of petitioners that the said agreement dated 07.07.2005 bears forged signatures of petitioners/accused, and there was also a prayer in the application (Annexure P-4) for examining handwriting expert for comparison of their standard/specimen signatures with the questioned signatures on the agreement.

Learned Magistrate allowed the document to be examined by an handwriting expert of petitioners but the prayer for sending stamp papers for report of Deputy Controller of Stamps, India Security Press was declined. Learned Magistrate observed that there was in fact no material on record from where it could be prima facie assumed that the stamp papers were not issued on the date it purports to have been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are three reports of handwriting experts on record of trial Court with regard to comparison of signatures. The report of the hand-writing expert of petitioners is Annexure P-10 who has given opinion to the effect that disputed signatures of Jagtar Singh are the product of copied forgery and in respect of Bhag Singh it is reported that the disputed signatures are the product of free hand forgery and do not tally with the standard/specimen signatures.

It was, therefore, vehemently contended that in view of this report of the expert, the report of Deputy Controller of Stamps, India Security Press would assume significance for determining the real issue. It is submitted that in case such a permission is not granted that would amount to declining the opportunity to the petitioners of a fair trial.

I have given anxious thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners and find no substance in the same. I say so for the reason that the basic question would be to determine whether the disputed document does or does not bear genuine signatures of petitioners/accused. That obviously would depend on the appropriate analysis of evidence led by the parties.

The relevant evidence on the subject has to be scanned in terms of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:-

Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved-

In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.

For the said purpose, therefore, to send the original stamp papers for report of Deputy Controller of Stamps, India Security Press without there being any suggestive material on record, would be entering into a fishing enquiry which cannot be permitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to letter dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) received from the India Security Press that the said department does not have information regarding the date of first release/issue of golden stamp of denomination of ` 5/- in the State of Punjab. There is, therefore, no specific report to the effect that golden stamps of ` 5/- was not available in the relevant year. In Annexure P-2 it was, however, stated that to obtain the said information, the document/stamps/stamp papers to be examined should be sent in original.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Kalyani Baskar Vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam, That was a case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the accused had denied the genuineness of signatures on the cheque. The trial Court declined the prayer for comparison of the cheque by a handwriting expert. Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. In the said case the refusal to send the document for comparison by handwriting expert was set aside, whereas in the instant case that prayer has been allowed by the trial Court, which only seems to be the appropriate course. However, the prayer for sending original stamp papers for seeking response to the query amounting to a fishing enquiry, has been rightly rejected.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the reasons recorded by learned trial Court in declining the prayer for sending the stamp papers for report of Deputy Controller of Stamps, India Security Press cannot be faulted.

No merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.