In Re: R., a Mukhtear of Chapra

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—We have before us the case of one B., a mukhtear practising at Chapra and aged about 70 years. The evidence very clearly discloses the fact that although he is certainly qualified to practise as mukhtear, his practice in fact consists of identification. He does not take his seat in the mukhtearkhana of the Court; he sits under a bar tree and does nothing else. The case which has led to the discovery of his real occupation was one in which he purported to identify the signature of one Ramnandan on three documents. One Basdeo Singh was placed on trial in the criminal Court for complicity in the false identification of Ramnandan Singh and B. Mukhtear, gave evidence in the course of that trial as to the particular incident in question. He explained it thus: He said that the accused man Basdeo Singh had come to him and asked him to identify the signature of Ramnandan. That as Ramnandan was a well known person he thereupon signed the identification of what purported to be Ramnandan''s signature on the documents presented to him. He stated that the accused person Basdeo Singh had informed him that Ramnandan was on his way to him (the mukhtear) and that he would come before him for the actual process of identification and while waiting for the appearance of Ramnandan he, the mukhtear, turned to other work, and while his attention was distracted from the matter Basdeo Singh took up the papers which he had already signed purporting to identify Ramnandan and disappeared, that is to say, the mukhtear threw all the blame on the individual Basdeo Singh who was being tried. The criminal Court acquitted Basdeo Singh of complicity in this false identification. The mukhtear was cross-examined in the course of his evidence and a number of cases were put to him in which he had purported to make identifications and in which it was very clear that the identification was falsely made. Indeed in one particular case, the case of the individual whom he had purported to identify on a former occasion and who was shown to him in Court, he had to:admit that he could not say whether that -was the individual he had identified.

There is no doubt that in course of time there has come into existence a class of mukhtears usually aged men who have no real practice as mukhtears but who earn a precarious living by making identifications which they are prepared to perform at a fee of a few annas as in the case of this particular man, and it is not expedient in the public interest that that profession of professional identifiers should be allowed to continue. It is of no avail to plead any excuse that the mukhtear is an aged person who could not otherwise maintain life, for that very excuse might be made for any aged person accused of some thoroughly wrongful act. The Courts and all officers who have to receive documents on which signatures are identified should remember that they are not bound to accept the identification merely because the nature of the identifier''s profession entitles him to perform identifications. It is very easy for any officer in that position to become acquainted with the fact that such and such mukhtear whose name he frequently sees on papers of identification has really no other business, and in those circumstances the presumption is that he is merely a professional identifier whose'' identification should not be accepted. If the Courts and the officers engaged therein are careful to bear this principle in mind this undesirable type of practitioner will very soon disappear. There is no possible excuse for the individual whose case we are considering and his name must be removed from the roll of mukhtears.

Mohamad Noor, J.

I agree.

James, J.

I agree.