The Signature That Never Was: A Tale of Forensic Truth and Legal Justice

 When Ink Tells a Different Story

In a busy commercial court, where large sums change hands on the strength of a signature, a peculiar dispute challenged everything about trust, evidence, and the art of proving authenticity. A lender claimed repayment via a bounced cheque bearing a borrower’s signature—yet the borrower insisted, “I never signed that cheque.”

The Mysterious Loan

Print Page

Whether contents of letters can be proved even though author of document is not examined?

Next are the document Nos. 4 and 5. Document at Sr. No.4 are the original letters dated 30.1.2009 and 6.2.2009 sent by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and addressed to the complainant. Both these documents purport to have been signed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. These letters were received by the complainant first letter at Sr.No.4 does not bear the date of sending. However, it purports to have been received on 30.1.2009 by Ashwin Sheth, the Managing Director of the complainant company. The letter was addressed to him. By this letter, the accused persons admitted to have received amount of Rs.25 crore on 25.2.2008 vide cheque No.820140 drawn on ICICI Bank. In the second para, it was stated that as the negotiation in respect of the property did not materialize, both the accused had handed over a cheque of Rs.25 crore dated 7.1.2009 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank to the complainant for repayment of the said amount. In the last para, they requested to deposit the said cheque on 5.2.2009. The document No.5 is the original letter dated 6.2.2009. It was issued in continuation of the earlier letter whereby the accused persons agreed to pay to the complainant interest at 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.25 crore till repayment. Both these original letters are on the letterhead of accused No.1 Ashvin C. Shah to the petitioner and both these letters purport to have been signed by both the accused persons. It is to be noted that before these letters were issued, the accused No.1 had issued a cheque dated 7.1.2009 in favour of the complainant and that original cheque is admitted. As stated earlier, no serious objection is taken to admission and execution of that cheque in evidence. The above refererd two letters purporting to have been sent by the accused persons and addressed to the Managing Director of the complainant were received by the Managing Director. Not only this, in response to the statutory notice dated 18.2.2009, the accused had sent the reply dated 6.3.2009.

The original reply of accused dated 6.3.2009 is at Sr.No.12. Under Sec. 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court has to form an opinion as to person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Explanation to Sec. 47 provides that a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to the document written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person or when in the ordinary course of business the document purporting to be written by that person have been habitualy submitted to him. In the present case, the two letters referred above, were received in the office of the complainant in the ordinary course of business and in respect of the transaction which had taken place between the complainant and the accused. The complainant's witness Sharad Doshi was the Executive Assistant to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the complainant company. In this capacity, he was expected to have received and seen the letters received from the accused persons by his boss ie.

 Managing Director. In paras 11 and 12 of his affidavit in evidence, witness Sharad Doshi specifically stated that the said letters were duly signed by both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and he knows the signature of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and could identify the same. In view of this statement on affidavit, and the provisions of Explanation to Sec. 47, the original letters purporting to have been signed by and received from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 could be admitted in evidence.

Bombay High Court

Ashish C. Shah vs M/S. Sheth Developers Pvt.Ltd. on 16 March, 2011

Bench: J. H. Bhatia

Criminal writ petition NO.40/2011

Citation:2011 (4) AIR Bom R 266

Print Page

Whether two finger prints can be declared as non-identical if they differ in their pattern type?

The well known text book i.e. B.L. Saxena's Law and Techniques relating to Identification of Handwriting, Patna High Court FA No.119 of 2010 dt.13-08-2013 Disputed Documents, Fingerprints, Footprints and Detection of Forgeries revised by Atul Kumar Singla at page 249, clause 8 provides that two finger prints can be declared non-identical on even a single point of material difference between them. If all finger prints differ in their main pattern type or sub-pattern type or ridge counting or ridge tracing or in their ridge characteristics they had surely been impressed by different finger prints. The law relating to Handwriting, Fingerprints and Graphology by Dr. Sarla Gupta (Agrawal), Beniprasad Agrawal, 2012 Edition at chapter 21 synopsis 3, the meaning of pattern has been explained that pattern is the factor which presents either similarity or difference at the first sight. So before considering the details, one may, at the outset, look to find out whether the two finger prints under examination show similar pattern or different pattern. If the pattern happens to be similar, the other details need be looked into. In case the pattern differs, then the impressions are not identical and further details need not be looked into.

 In these principles regarding finger prints admittedly in this present case, the pattern was found different, therefore, it was not necessary for the experts to look further details. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect Patna High Court FA No.119 of 2010 dt.13-08-2013 that further details should have been given by the expert. It is settled principles of law that more qualified expert's evidence is to be accepted in preference to the less qualified expert and that too a private expert to whom the photographs of the disputed thumb impression were sent by the advocate without the order of the court. 

Patna High Court

Ram Jatan Rai vs Dr. Sita Ram Singh & Ors on 13 August, 2013

Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
 Citation: 2014(2)PLJR535

Print Page

Whether natural writing is to be preferred over specimen handwriting in identification of handwriting?

Certain curious features regarding the opinion of the expert have been referred to by Mr. Manohar and they may be briefly stated. It is axiomatic in the identification of handwriting that natural writings form a much better basis for observation and conclusion then specimens obtained from a writer. In the present case, during investigation previous writings of the present accused were obtained. They are Exhs. 53 to 55 made by the accused, two in January 1967 and one in March 1967. As discussed above, while studying the two crucial writings, namely the signature on the reverse of Exh. 36 and the signature on Exh. 37, what the expert does is to compare the disputed writings with the specimens obtained from the accused in prison. There is no reference whatever to the expert having compared the previous admitted writings Exhs, 52 to 55 with the disputed ones. Mr. Manohar has contended that it is not a case just of an omission to examine the previous writings and compare them. He states that it could very well be that the expert with his extensive experience of examining documents as well as deposing in Court would have examined a natural writing and noted his conclusion. Yet, it must be because he found nothing any common between the previous admitted writings, and the disputed writings, that the expert said nothing on the point. The contention is justified.

Equivalent Citation: 1973MhLJ855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Appeal No. 259 of 1968

Decided On: 10.01.1973

 Jiwan Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.B. Padhye and G.G. Bhojraj, JJ.

Print Page