State of H.P. vs Rajinder Kumar and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 24.12.1999, of learned trial Magistrate, whereby Respondents Rajinder Kumar and Sarwan Kumar, who were tried for offences, under Sections 380/420 read with Sections 120B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, have been acquitted.

Allegations, on which charge was framed, may be stated. PW-6 Santosh Kumar Kapoor made a report to Manager State Bank of India, Palampur Branch, on 21.9.1992, that his passbook and cheque book, pertaining to his saving bank account, had been missing. The same day Respondents Raajinder Kumar and Sarwan Kumar allegedly went to State Bank of India, Palampur Branch and presented a withdrawal slip for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 4000/- from the account of PW-6 Santosh Kumar Kapoor. Since a complaint had already been made to the Manager of the Bank about the loss of pass book and cheque book, Respondents were apprehended. Police was called. Respondents allegedly made disclosure statements to the effect that earlier also they had withdrawn certain amounts of money on four different occasions, by forging signatures of PW-6 Santosh Kumar. Documents pertaining to withdrawal of those four amounts were taken out from the record of the bank. Specimen signatures and handwritings of the two Respodents were taken before a Judicial Magistrate. Admitted writings of the two Respondents were also taken into possession. Standard writings/signatures of the Respondents, consisting of their aforesaid specimen writings/signatures and admitted writings/signatures, were sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with the writings/signatures on the withdrawal slips, against which money had been withdrawn on earlier four occasions. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (Handwriting Expert) gave the opinion that the standard writings/signatures and questioned writings/signatures had been authored by the same person, i.e. the Respondents.

Prosecution examined some bank officials, Santosh Kumar Kapoor, who had saving bank account with the bank, and some other witnesses, besides relying upon the report of Handwriting Expert, to prove the charge.

Learned trial Court acquitted the Respondents, holding that the bank official, i.e. the Desk Clerk, to whom withdrawal slip had allegedly been presented on the fateful day, had not been examined and that the report of Handwriting Expert did not spell out the reasons for the opinion that the standard writings/signatures and the questioned writings/signatures were written by the same persons.

Acquittal of the Respondents on the ground that Handwriting Expert''s opinion cannot be used as evidence, because of the detail of the tests/analysis conducted by the Examiner not finding mention in the report, is not justifiable. No doubt the opinion does not state the reasons, which led the Examiner to form the aforesaid opinion, but then the trial Magistrate ought to have examined the Examiner, as a witness. Normally, Handwriting Experts submit their opinion without reasons and it is only when they are examined in the Court that they appear with the record containing detailed reasons and other scientific material like photographs etc. and testify in the Court how did they arrive at the opinion.

In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted. Impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to learned trial Magistrate, with a direction to examine the Handwriting Expert, as a witness of the prosecution and thereafter to decide the case afresh. It is clarified that accused shall have the right to cross-examine the Handwriting Expert and also to lead evidence to rebut his report/testimony.

Appeal stands disposed of.