AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—The first accused is the petitioner herein. The revision is filed against his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 419 (1 count), 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 467 IPC passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. The accused along with three others was charged for the offences referred to above as if the accused, who was during the relevant point of time, employed as driver in Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, along with three others by names Ganesan, who was the employee of State Bank of India, Treasury Bank, Chennai, Ramachandran and Rajendran, conspired together to commit an act of forgery and cheating and in continuation of such conspiracy, Ganesan stolen three cheques in question and handed over the same to Rajendran who inturn handed it over to Ramachandran, from whom the accused Mani received and altered the date and payee names and presented the same in the banks as genuine and encashed it through the accounts opened in MCC bank in different fictitious names and encashed the cheque amounts and misappropriated the amounts to the tune of Rs. 1,72,423/-, Rs. 2,60,575/- and Rs. 2,12,080/- under all the cheques respectively, thereby committed the acts constituting the offences as referred to above.
The criminal prosecution is initiated against the four accused and is subsequently split up in respect of two accused viz., Ramachandran and Rajendran and the case is proceeded in respect of the remaining accused viz., Mani and Ganesan arraying them as A1 and A2.
The prosecution has in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined the officers attached to Pay and Accounts Office, SBI, Treasury Branch, MCC bank, Indian Bank and Canara Bank who are associated with the preparation and issuance of cheques, responsible to open new accounts and to maintain the same, to receive and process the cheques and to give credit to the cheque amounts in the new accounts concerned and to disburse the amount and higher officials of the banks through which cheques are presented encashed and withdrawn, handwriting expert, complainant, Judicial Magistrate who held identification parade and the Investigating officer as P.W. 1 to P.W. 34 and produced the cheques in question, complaint, counterfoil of the cheques, altered cheques, receipt for deposit of money to open new account, current account of the introducer, application for opening new account, admitted and disputed signature of the accused-Mani and Ramachandran, handwriting expert opinion along with reasoning sheet, Indian Bank ledger extract relating to one Ganesan and FIR as Exhibits P-1 to P-21. No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on the side of the accused.
The trial Court, on the basis of the oral evidence of the witnesses and their identification of the accused Al in the identification parade and by mainly relying upon Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P16 handwriting expert report along with reasoning, found the first accused guilty of the offences and acquitted the second accused. Aggrieved against the same, A1 Mani preferred C.A. No. 257 of 2004 and the appellate Court accepted the findings and reasonings of the trial Court and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision by Al before this Court.
Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
The main allegations against Al Mani are that he had, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched between all four persons and the cheques in question are removed through A2 and A1 fabricated the same by altering the name of the payees and cheque numbers and thereafter presented the same as genuine through different banks and encashed the same through new accounts opened in fictitious names and misappropriated the amount. Though the allegations in the complaint proceeds as if the cheques were removed by A2 Ganesan who handed it over to Rajendran, who inturn handed it over to Ramachandran from whom A1 Mani received the same, A2 was acquitted but the source of custody of cheques in the hands of Al in any other manner is neither alleged nor established.
As already stated, the trial Court found the accused guilty mainly on the basis of two factors: (i) identification of the accused as that of the person who opened new account in fictitious name and withdrew the money and (ii) handwriting expert opinion about the similarity of the admitted signatures of A1 Mani with disputed signatures.
As already referred to, A1 was an employee of Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, as such, he was admittedly not known to either of the officials or staff attached to Pay and Accounts office, original payees, SBI Bank, Indian Bank and Canara Bank and MCC Bank, as such proof of participation of A1 in any of the acts mentioned above can be firstly by way of his identification by competent witnesses. Considering the nature of allegations raised against A1, the competent witnesses, if any, who could be able to identify A1 are either of the officials of Indian Bank, MCC Bank and Canara Bank, where A1 allegedly opened new account in fictitious names- such as A. Rajan, M.S.Ramesh, Kanagavel and Faneerselvam and the witnesses in whose presence, sample signatures of Al Mani were taken by P.W. 34/Investigation Officer and they are examined as P.W. 11, Prabakar, MCC Bank, P.W. 12 Venkatesan and P.W. 13 Sankaranarayanan, P.W. 16 Valli, P.W. 17 Pethachi, P.W. 18-Chandrasekaran, Officer, Indian Bank, P.W. 19-Radhakrishnan, Indian Bank, existing account holder-cum-Introducer Kanagavel, P.W. 14 Ravindran, staff Indian Bank, Head Office, P.W. 21 -Chandrasekaran, MCC Bank, P.W. 30- Selvaraj, driver, Transport Corporation/Introducer, P.W. 31- Ravindran, Staff, Indian Bank, Tiruvetteswaran-Introducer of Ramachandran and P.W. 33-Perumalappan, Judicial Magistrate, who held identification parade of Mani through P.W. 13-Sankaranarayanan, P.W. 21- Chandrasekaran and one Manickam and Ravindran.
The other witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are to speak about the preparation and fabrication of the cheques on different occasions and presentation and encashment of one of the cheques in question twice and presentation and encashment of the other fabricated cheques and withdrawal of the amount through new accounts opened in different names in different banks etc.
P.W. 9-Raviverma and P.W. 11-Prabakar are the then Assistant Manager and Manager of MCC Bank, Head office. P.W. 9 and P.W. 21 deposed about the opening of new accounts in the names of A. Rajan and M.S. Ramesh introduced by A. Rajan and withdrawal of Rs. 1,72,423/- and Rs. 2,60,000/- on different dates by M.S. Ramesh. It is nowhere deposed by them that new accounts opened in the names of A. Rajan and M.S. Rajesh are in fictitious nature and the accounts are opened in different persons by one and the same person, A1 Mani. P.W. 21 Chandrasekaran has deposed that new account is opened in the name of A. Rajan on 19.10.1992 and he came to know during 1993 that one Mani opened the account in the name of A. Rajan. Whereas, he did not identify A1 Mani as that of the person, who committed the alleged act of impersonation. Further, P.W. 11 Prabakar through whom P. W.21 -Chandrasekaran came to know about the opening of new account in the name of A. Rajan did not speak anything about impersonation as spoken by P.W. 21.
P.W. 12 Venkatesan, P.W. 13 Sankaranarayanan and P.W. 14 Ravindran, P.W. 16 Valli and P.W. 18 Chandrasekaran and P.W. 28 Subramaniyan, P.W. 30 Selvaraj and P.W. 31 Ravindran are all attached to Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch and Head office. While P.W. 12-Venkatesan says that one Mani brought one Kanagavelu by impersonating him as Faneerselvam and opened an account in the name of Adi Dravidar Housing and Industries Society represented by its Secretary and Treasurer Kanagavelu and Panneerselvam, P.W. 13 Sankaranarayanan has in his chief examination made a contradictory statement and it is deposed by him that new account is opened in the name of Society having Kanagevelu and Panneerselvam as Secretary and Treasurer and Kanagavelu was introduced by P.W. 14 Ravindran. It is in the evidence of P14 Ravindran that Kanagavel @ Ramachandran was introduced to him through one Jothi, who was the Secretary of Congress party, who is acquainted with P.W. 14 as he was the then Vice President of Indian Congress Workers Union and at the instance of Jothi, he introduced Kanagavel @ Ramachandran for opening a new account in the name of the Society. However, P.W. 12 to P.W. 14 did not speak anything about their association with either Kanagavel and Panneerselvam or Kanagavel @ Ramachandran or Panneerselvam. P.W. 16 Valli attached to same Indian Bank was examined regarding fabrication of cheques in the name of Adi dravidar Housing and Industries Society. Whereas, she was not able to identify the person who presented the cheques in the bank for collection.
P.W. 18 Chandrasekaran attached to Indian Bank deposed about the issuance of cheque book to Panneerselvam and Kanagevel, office bearers of the Society and did not whisper anything about A1-Mani. P.W. 17 and P.W. 19 are the officers of Indian Bank, who according to the prosecution, stood as witnesses for collecting specimen signatures and hand writings of A1 Mani as Rajan and Arumugam. While P.W. 17 did not support the prosecution case in this regard, P.W. 19 did not identify A1 as the person from whom the specimen signatures and hand writings were collected.
It is in the evidence of P.W. 30-Selvaraj that one elderly person aged about 70 years requested him to introduce him to open a Savings Bank account in Indian Bank, Mylapore branch. However, he was not able to furnish any other particular about the so called elderly man, date on which the account was opened and account number etc. P.W. 13-Sankaranarayanan, officer attached to Indian Bank has deposed that one Jothi of Manjula Travels introduced Ramachandran aged about 22 years and he introduced him to the Branch Manger to open an account in the name of Adi dravidar Housing and Industries Society and he also did not speak anything about A1 -Mani. Thus, the witnesses did not either mention the name of Mani or identify the accused A1 -Mani as the person associated in any manner either with the Society or Kanagavel and Panneerselvam or involved in the matter of opening new account, presentation and encashment of cheques and withdrawal of money etc. Though P.W. 33-Judicial Magistrate was examined to speak about the identification parade held, he did not depose in detail about the manner in which the proceedings was held and outcome of the same and as to whether the witnesses duly identified A1 Mani or not. Further, the document relating to identification parade proceedings is not made available before the trial Court. In that event, the oral evidence of P.W. 33, Judicial Magistrate cannot be attached any reliance relating to identification of A1 Mani.
Thus, the discussions held above would reveal that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the source of custody of Al of the cheques in question and his participation in any manner in the matter of fabrication, presentation and encashment of cheques and withdrawal of the cheque amounts through opening new accounts in different names.
Excluding the oral evidence of witnesses as above referred to and prosecution theory of identification of A1 -Mani, the other incriminating document relied upon by the trial Court to base its order of conviction is Exhibit P15 hand writing expert opinion along with Exhibit P-16 reasoning sheet given by P.W. 24-Kasi to the effect that Exhibit P-13 and Exhibit P-14 specimen signatures and writings obtained from Mani and the signatures in the bank documents for opening new bank accounts are one and the same. P.W. 17 and P.W. 19 attached to Indian bank are the attesting witnesses for obtaining specimen signatures from A1 -Mani. Out of two witnesses, P. W. 17-Pethachi did not support the prosecution case and declared to be hostile. According to him, he was along with P.W. 19-Assistant Manager, Radhakrishnan taken to CBCID office at Radakrishnan Salai, Mylapore from Indian Bank Mylapore and at CBCID office, their signatures are obtained in the papers containing the sample signature of Rajan and Arumugam. He did not support the prosecution version that he stood as one of the witnesses for collecting the sample signature from A1-Mani. It is true that P.W. 19-then Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Mylapore stated that CBCID, Superintendent of police came to office on 11.1.1994 and P.W. 17-Pethachi and P.W. 19-Radhakrishnan were taken to CBCID office at 252, Linghi Chetti Street, Chennai-1, where A1 -Mani was present in compliance with the conditional bail order and Mani was asked to give sample signatures as A. Rajan and Arumugam and Pannerselvam in Tamil and English and his signatures were obtained and the signatures of P.W. 17 and P.W. 19 were also obtained in all the sheets as attesting witnesses. But, he did not and is not able to identify Al-Mani as the person from whom the sample signatures are obtained in his presence. He has in the course of his cross examination disowned any knowledge about the identity of A1 -Mani. He would further say that there were three persons in the police stations and police obtained signatures from them all. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 19 is of no useful to the prosecution.
Insofar as the collection of sample signatures is concerned, the same is admittedly collected by P.W. 34-investigation officer in CBCID office in the course of his investigation, while the accused appeared in person in the office of CBCID in compliance with the conditional bail order granted to him. It is admittedly collected and sent For comparison by P.W. 34/Investigation Officer on his own in the course of his investigation and not on the strength of any order passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.
It is seriously argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the investigation officer has no authority to collect the specimen signature and to send it to handwriting expert in the course of his investigation without any order of the Court and such course adopted by the Investigation Officer is not in accordance with any procedure and is irregular and unlawful and any report obtained in respect of such signatures cannot be attached any evidentiary value that too, to base any order of conviction. This Court finds much legal force in the argument so advanced on the side of the accused.
In this regard, the relevant provisions of law to be looked into are Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. For better appreciation, the same are extracted hereunder:
Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act: 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 if 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 writ-ten by such person. (This Section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.)
Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act: Taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons-
Any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner.
Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act: Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed-
If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to the effect, and in that case, the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer:
Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class:
Provided further, that no order shall be made under this Section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.
The nature and the scope of the authority of the Court and the police officer and the stage at which the same can be invoked is dealt with by the Hon''ble Apex Court, our High Court and other High Courts in catena of Judgments referred to hereunder.
(i) The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu Misra, observed as follows:
Though a direction by the Magistrate to the accused to give his specimen writing when the case is still under investigation would surely be in the interests of the administration of justice, the language of Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not enable the Magistrate to give such a direction when the case is still under investigation. The Section contemplates pendency of some proceedings before a Court. It does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. Further, Section 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court.....
While we agree with Mr. Rana that a direction by the Magistrate to the accused to give his specimen writing when the case is still under investigation would surely be in the interests of the administration of justice, we find ourselves unable to agree with his submission that Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the Magistrate to give such a direction even when the case is still under investigation....
The second paragraph of Section 73 enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings ''for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare'' such writings with writings alleged to have been written by such person. The clear implication of the words ''for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare'' is that there is some proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for the Court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of ''enabling the Court to compare'' and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency ''to compare''. If the case is still under investigation there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. Further, Section 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. Would it be open to a person to seek the assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing u/s 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a Civil Suit in which the question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? Obviously not. If not, why should it make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the Court u/s 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings?"
The Hon''ble Supreme Court expressed such a view on the construction of Section 73 of Evidence Act by adopting the view taken by our High Court in the judgment T. Subbiah v. S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar AIR 1970 Mad 85 : LNIND 1969 Mad 32. The Supreme Court did not agree with the contrary view taken by the High Court of Patna and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgments Gulzar Khan and Others Vs. State, and B. Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh LNIND 1971 AP 68 : (1971)1 MLJ (Crl)481.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the same judgment also dealt with the power of the Court u/s 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. The Supreme Court, while appreciating Section 5 in the light of definition of ''measurements'' as including ''finger impressions and foot-print impressions'' u/s 2(a) of the Act, observed in para 6 as follows:
There are two things to be noticed here. First, signature and writing are excluded from the range of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and second, ''finger impressions'' are included in both Section 73 of the Evidence Act and Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. A possible view is that it was thought that Section 73 of the Evidence Act would not take in the stage of investigation and so Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act made special provision for that stage and even while making such provision, signature and writings were deliberately excluded.
The Apex Court concluded its decision by suggesting suitable legislation on the analogy of Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act to provide for the investiture of Magistrates with the power to issue directions to any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures and writings.
(ii) The Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with evidentiary value of expert opinion regarding specimen writings given by the accused, when there was no enquiry or proceeding pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the judgment Amarjit Singh v. State of U.P. (1998) SCC (Cri) 1609, wherein, the specimen writings of the accused was obtained with the directions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The direction was so issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, when no inquiry or trial was pending before him. The Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment expressed its view to the effect that ''''the specimen writings obtained with the directions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, were not meant to assist the ''Court to form its opinion'' as envisaged by Section 73 of the Evidence Act and the specimen writing, under the circumstances, could not be used against the appellant and such lacuna affects the relevancy of the evidence of the expert in the case". The supreme Court while taking such view, drew the support of the decision of the Supreme Court Sukhvinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab,
(iii) The Supreme Court and the Division Bench of our High Court have also in the following cases, upheld the authority of the police officer u/s 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act to take measurements of the accused including finger print impressions.
(a) In the judgment Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the specimen finger print impressions illegally obtained by the police not before the Magistrate without any direction must be ruled out of evidence of expert. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the police were competent u/s 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act to take specimen finger prints of the accused and it was not necessary for them to obtain any order from the Magistrate for obtaining such specimen finger prints.
(b) The Apex Court in the judgment Mukimuddin v. The State (1991) Crl. LJ 2903 while rejecting specimen signatures collected from the accused, while he was in custody, are not admissible in evidence, was of the view that the same reasoning cannot be applied to the finger print impressions of the accused being obtained by the police.
Thus, the Hon''ble Apex Court and our High Court in the judgments cited above, refused to attach any evidentiary value to the expert opinion relating to specimen signatures obtained from the accused and sent for expert opinion without any order from the Magistrate and it is negatived on the sole ground that the specimen writings were not obtained as per the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of law.
(iv) The Division Bench of our High Court in the judgment Thangaraj and Others v. State by the Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District LNIND 2009 Mad 3664 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 937 rejected similar contention that the material irregularity is committed by the Investigation Officer in taking sample finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison to establish the offence on the same ground that it falls u/s 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. However, the Supreme Court recorded a note of caution in the judgment in Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, by observing that though u/s 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, the police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused, it was eminently desirable that they are taken before or under the order of a Magistrate to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence.
Thus, the observations of the Supreme Court and our High Court in the above judgments would undoubtedly go to show that it is only the Courts who are empowered u/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to direct collection of specimen signatures, writings and seal from any accused for the purpose of comparison to establish the offence, when the accused appeared before the Court in connection with any proceeding pending before the same. Whereas, Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act empowers the Court to pass similar direction to allow measurements or photograph to be taken from the accused in the course of any investigation or proceedings before the same and specimen signature, hand writing and seal are consciously excluded from Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act. The only provision of law empowers the police officer to take measurement of the accused in the course of investigation is u/s 4 of the Act and the measurement does not include specimen signature and writing. As the specimen signature and writing herein is collected and sent for expert opinion in the course of investigation by the police officer without any order obtained from the competent Court and not during pendency of any proceedings before the same and not when the accused appeared in connection with any proceeding before the Court, the same is without any authority and is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, as such no evidentiary value can be attached to the hand writing expert opinion in respect of such specimen signatures and writings.
Even assuming it to be true that the specimen signatures and hand writings are obtained from A1 Mani lawfully and in accordance with the procedure and there is no reason to ignore the opinion of the handwriting expert supporting the case of the prosecution that A1 Mani committed the act of forgery by altering the payee names and dates in the cheque and by opening the account in fictitious names for the purpose of presenting the fabricated cheques as genuine and encashed and misappropriated the money for his own use, the next question arises for consideration herein is as to whether the expert opinion can be the sole basis for deciding the guilty or other wise of the accused for the charges framed against him.
In the foregoing paragraphs, the first aspect based on which is the finding of conviction i.e., identification of the accused as that of the person who opened new account in fictitious names and who presented the fabricated cheques, encashed it, got the amount credited into such new accounts and withdrew the money, is held to be not established. In that event, the other incriminating substance available against the accused is Exhibit P-15 expert opinion and Exhibit P-16 reasoning sheet. This Court after due analysis of the evidence available before this Court, found that there is no other independent and reliable evidence to corroborate the opinion of the handwriting expert about the participation of the accused in the commission of any of the acts in the manner as referred to above.
In the absence of such corroborating evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seriously argued that it is not safe to rely upon without other reliable independent evidence, the uncorroborated evidence of handwriting expert to base an order of conviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has in order to fortify his contention cited the following catenna of judgments of Apex Court, our High Court and other High Courts, (i) Ram Chandra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence; (ii) in Iswhari Prasad Misra v. Mohamead Isa AIR 1963 SC 1738; in K. Dhanasekaran v. State by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Erode 2003 (1) CTC 223 Mad : LNIND 2002 Mad 1215. Evidence of expert opinion is not corroborated by either clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Conviction based on uncorroborated opinion liable to be set aside; (iii) Shasi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 Con. Bench : LNIND 1963 SC 217, experts evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is useful to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence; (iv) Fakruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1964 SC 1326, it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial; (v) in Smt. Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma and Others, , the evidence of handwriting expert unlike that of the fingerprint expert is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The Court should, therefore be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert; (vi) in Kishore Chandra v. Ganesh Prasad AIR 1954 SC 136, conviction based on mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to positive evidence in the case; (vii) Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, , the science of identification of finger prints is absolutely reliable and perfect as compared to imperfect nature of science of handwritings and signatures; (viii) 1980 CriLJ 396 (SC) though there was neither rule of law nor any rule of prudence, which has crystalized into a rule of law, the opinion of the handwriting expert never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated and the science of identification of handwriting, being in imperfect nature, the approach should be one of caution; and (ix) in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) CLJ 3237 SC; in Inderjit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (1995) SCC (Crl.) 837; in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and others, ; in Magan Bihari Lal v. the State of Punjab (supra), expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution.
That being the factual and legal position regarding the science of identification of handwriting, no serious reliance can be attached to Exhibit P15 expert opinion. Thus, this Court, for the discussion held above, is of the view that both the grounds on which the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found the accused guilty, have no legal basis and are contrary to well settled legal position and are legally and factually unsustainable and the finding is hence totally perverse and legally vitiated and the same deserves interference by this Court. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.4.2005 made in C.A. No. 257 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Chennai and the judgment dated 14.6.2004 made in C.C. No. 7873 of 1996 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the revision petitioner/A1 is acquitted from the charges. The bail bond if any executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him.