Supreme Court: Whether identification of specimen signature of accused by handwriting expert was hearsay and whether he can prove said signature?

 But what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was never admitted by A- 7 to be in his handwriting. Exhibit P-75 was marked through PW-30, the handwriting expert, and not even by the I.O. At least if the I.O. had identified and marked the specimen writings and signatures of A-7 as Exhibit P-75, it was possible for the prosecution to contend that the specimen signatures stood proved. But the I.O. did not identify Exhibit P-75. PW-30 through whom Exhibit P-75 was marked did not directly obtain the specimen writings of A-7. The statement of PW-30 that the specimen writings of A-7 are in Exhibit P-75 was only hearsay evidence, as he did not directly obtain those specimen signatures. Thus, Exhibit P- 75 never stood proved. {Para 134}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2417 of 2010, 16 of 2011 and 2444 of 2010

Decided On: 15.06.2023

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0723/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: What are essential pre-requisite for comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones U/S 73 of the Evidence Act?

  The High Court fortunately realised the pitfall in the reasoning of the Trial Court. But in an over-anxiety to somehow convict A-7, the High Court adopted a very peculiar route, namely that of undertaking the task of comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. {Para 130}

131. For invoking Section 73, there must first have been some signature or writing admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person. The Section empowers the Court also to 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.

132. There was no signature or writing available before the High Court, which had been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made. The High Court did not also direct A-7 to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling a comparison. Without following the procedure so prescribed in Section 73, the High Court invented a novel procedure, to uphold the conviction handed over by the Trial Court through a wrong reasoning.

133. In fact, the High Court considered Exhibit P-75 to be the document containing the admitted handwritings and signatures of A-7 and compared what was found therein with the handwritings/signatures found in Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90 and P-92.

134. But what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was never admitted by A- 7 to be in his handwriting. Exhibit P-75 was marked through PW-30, the handwriting expert, and not even by the I.O. At least if the I.O. had identified and marked the specimen writings and signatures of A-7 as Exhibit P-75, it was possible for the prosecution to contend that the specimen signatures stood proved. But the I.O. did not identify Exhibit P-75. PW-30 through whom Exhibit P-75 was marked did not directly obtain the specimen writings of A-7. The statement of PW-30 that the specimen writings of A-7 are in Exhibit P-75 was only hearsay evidence, as he did not directly obtain those specimen signatures. Thus, Exhibit P- 75 never stood proved.

135. Even in the questioning Under Section 313 of the Code, no specific question was put to A-7 whether Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90, P-92 and P- 75 were in his handwritings and whether they contained his signatures. Therefore, what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was not even admitted signatures.

136. In the absence of either admission or proof of the admitted signatures, the High Court could not have resorted to Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

137. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court as though A-7 committed forgery and cheating by making applications for the issue of demand drafts in the names of bogus firms is wholly unsustainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2417 of 2010, 16 of 2011 and 2444 of 2010

Decided On: 15.06.2023

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0723/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to compare signature on photostat copy with standard signature?

 Another reason for non-suiting of the plaintiff was that though the plaintiff had examined a document expert but since he had compared the alleged signatures of the defendant from the photostat copy with the standard signatures, the same could not be done. The relevant authorities in that regard cited by learned counsel for the parties have been discussed. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that no reliance can be placed upon the report of document expert since the signatures could not be compared from the photostat copy.

18. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned here that under Order 7, Rule 14, CPC, the original documents in possession of the plaintiff ought to have been attached along with the plaint. However, strangely enough only photostat copies thereof were filed. The plaintiff would have been on better footing if the pronote and receipt were scribed by a regular Deed Writer with an entry being there in his register in the ordinary course of business containing signatures of the parties and those of attesting witnesses, then the chances of the pronote and receipt having been forged/fabricated would have been minimized but it is not so in the present case. There could be a possibility of the documents being fabricated, the signatures of defendant being lifted from any document containing his admitted signatures and placed on other documents by superimposition as has been observed in authority by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e. Sh. Surjit Rai v. Sh. Prem Kumar Khera and Ors. MANU/PH/0297/1995 : 1995(2) PLR 140 and then suit filed on the basis thereof stating that the original had been lost.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

RSA No. 1122 of 2014 (O&M)

Decided On: 05.02.2019

 Gurdial Singh Vs.   Dalveer Kaur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harminder Singh Madaan, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 P&H 66

Print Page

S 311-A of CRPC is not retrospective,it is prospective in nature?

After referring to Section 5 of the Identification of
Prisoners Act, 1980 in Ram Babu Misra’s case, this Court
suggested that a suitable legislation be made along its lines to
provide for investiture of Magistrates with powers to issue
directions to any person including an accused person to give
specimen signatures and handwriting. Accordingly, a new Section
311-A was inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section
311-A Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“Section 311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen
signatures or handwriting.-If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied
that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this
Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused
person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an
order to that 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 such order and shall give his specimen signatures or
handwriting:
Provided 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 said amendment is prospective in nature and not
retrospective.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2012
SUKH RAM 
V
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4146 SC

Print Page

Whether the court can direct accused to give long passages and pages for specimen handwriting or signature?

The   argument   of   the   learned   counsel   for 
Petitioner­Accused is that under Section 73 of the 
Indian   Evidence   Act   the   Court   could   direct   the 

prosecutrix   to   give   writing   in   compliance   of   the 
requirement of the handwriting expert. Section 73 
of the Indian Evidence Act, reads as under:­
“73.   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 
If   the   above   Section   is   perused,   it   is 
been written by such person.”
clear   from   the   First   Part   that   in   order   to 
ascertain   whether   a   writing   is   of   the   person   by 
whom   it   purports   to   have   been   written,   any 
signature   or   writing   which   has   been   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. 
Second   Part   of   the   Section   gives   power   to   the 
Court   to   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.   Thus,   Section   73   of   the   Indian   Evidence 
Act is to enable the Court to compare and to that 
end Court can ask the person to write any words or 
figures. Although how many words or figures is not 
prescribed,  it has  to be reasonable.   It does  not 
mean   that   long   passages   and   pages   as   is   being 
sought, could be asked to be written down. Still, 

the   Respondent   No.2­   prosecutrix   did   give   sample 
handwriting   in   a   long   passage   as   well   as   her 
signatures with different dates.


                                       
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL  REVISION  APPLICATION  NO.48  OF 2014

Dr. Suyog  Dinkarrao Vyas  Vs        The State of Maharashtra,

              CORAM:    A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
   
 Dated : 29TH APRIL, 2014 

Citation; 2014 CRLJ(NOC) 444 Bom

Print Page

Whether court can ask prosecutrix to give specimen signatures or handwriting U/S 311­A of CRPC?

Perusal   of   the   above   Section   makes   it 
clear,   specially   the   Proviso,   that   it   relates   to 
the  power  of the  Magistrate  to direct  any  person 
including   an   accused   person   to   give   specimen 
signatures   or   handwriting,   if   it   is   considered 

expedient   for   the   purpose   of   investigation   or 
proceeding, provided, the person concerned had at 
some   time   been   arrested   in   connection   with   the 
investigation   or   proceedings   concerned.   It   is 
pertinent   to   note   that   Respondent   No.2­ 
prosecutrix is not an accused nor a person who was 
arrested   in   connection   with   investigation   or 

proceeding concerned. Section 311­A of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure does not apply to the facts of 
the present matter. 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                       
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
CRIMINAL  REVISION  APPLICATION  NO.48  OF 2014
Dr. Suyog s/o Dinkarrao Vyas,

       VERSUS             
1) The State of Maharashtra,
2) Prosecutrix
   (for name see original Petition)  
                                ...
              CORAM:    A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

   DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2014 
Citation;2014 CRLJ(NOC)444 Bom,2016 ALLMR(CRI)1042

Print Page

Whether Mismatch of Signature can constitute offence U/S138 of NI Act?

The Supreme Court of India (the “Supreme Court”) in its recent judgment in the case of M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [1] has extended the ambit of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the “Act”) to dishonor of cheques due to mismatch of signature of drawer on the cheque with the specimen signature available with the bank.

Background:

One of the respondents in the case issued several cheques signed by its authorised signatory in favour of Laxmi Dyechem. Several of these cheques were dishonoured by the bank on the ground that the signatures on the cheques were incomplete or that the signatures of the drawer did not match the specimen signatures available with the bank. The cheques remained unpaid despite notice being served upon the respondents under Section 138 of the Act. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and one of the signatories of the cheque filed a Special Criminal Application before the Gujarat High Court (the “High Court”).

Print Page