Judgment:
ORDER
V.R. Ramkumar, J.
1. The petitioner herein is the revision petitioner/accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The request of the petitioner in this petition is to get the disputed signature in Ext. P10 compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner by a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The case of the first respondent/complainant who is a money lender is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.25 lakhs as evidenced by Ext. P10 voucher dated 9-4-1999 and towards discharge of the said liability the accused issued Ext. P4 cheque dated 14-3-2002 for Rs. 6,10,000/- and on presentation of the cheque in the drawee bank it bounced.
3. The revision petitioner inter alia took up the stand that in relation to certain previous transactions with the complainant bank, five blank cheques were taken by the complainant from the revision petitioner and Ext. P4 cheque is one of those cheque and the signatures in Ext. P10 voucher as well as Ext. P4 cheque were forged.
4. The revision petitioner has a grievance that one Advocate Mohan was engaged by him to appear for him in the trial court and the said Advocate expired during the pendency of the case and since a junior advocate was thereafter appearing for the petitioner, he did not take prompt steps for getting the disputed signature examined by an expert.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant opposed the application contending inter alia as follows:
The revision petitioner/accused had not cared to send even a reply to the statutory notice sent by him. No such petition was filed by him before the trial court. Notwithstanding slight discrepancy, the signatures in Ext. P4 cheque and Ext. P10 voucher resemble the undisputed signatures of the accused in his vakalath, deposition (DW1) etc. The trial court has noticed that his own admitted signature in Ext. P9 postal acknowledgment differs from his own other admitted signatures. He did not dispute his signature in Ext. P4 cheque and, therefore, the question of comparing the signatures by a handwriting expert does not arise.
6. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions on behalf of the complainant. The accused has offered an explanation as to why no reply was given by him to the statutory notice. According to him, after receipt of the said notice, when he approached the complainant, the complainant assured him that he need not take the notice seriously and accordingly took the notice from the accused who was thus disabled from preparing a reply to the notice. He has similar explanation as to why no such petition was filed before the trial court. The counsel whom he had engaged to conduct the case passed away and it was a relatively inexperienced junior who conducted the case.
7. It cannot be said that the signatures in Exts. P4 cheque and P10 voucher resemble the admitted signatures of the accused. I have attempted a comparison of the signature found in Ext. P4 cheque and Ext. P10 voucher with the undisputed signatures of the accused in his deposition as D.W. 1. There appears no similarity at all in the signatures in Ext. P4 and P10 with admitted signatures of the accused in his deposition. In fact, in paragraph, 10 of the judgment of the trial court it is observed that there is some dissimilarity in the signature in Ext. P10 voucher with the signature of the accused in Ext. P4 cheque and with the signatures of the accused in the bail bond, vakalath and deposition etc. No doubt, the admitted signatures of the accused in Ext. P9 postal acknowledgment card does not bear any similarity with his admitted signatures in the vakalath, bail bond and deposition. No two signatures of the same person can ever be identical in all respects. But the essential and unique characteristics of the writings of a person will invariably be present even if those signatures were to be replicated by the same person. The discrepancies in such a case will be within the natural variations. When the courts itself entertained some doubt after observing the discrepancies in the signatures, the court should not have ventured to form an opinion merely because Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the court to compare the signatures. Even though, there is no bar for the court to compare the admitted signatures/writings with the disputed signatures/writings and come to its own conclusion, it would be more prudent to require the opinion of an expert. (See O. Bharatha v. K. Sudhakeran and Anr. : AIR1996SC1140 and State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram : 1979CriLJ17 ). As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety the court should not normally take upon itself the task of comparing the disputed signature with the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, the court should leave the matter to the wisdom of an expert. (Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka : 1997CriLJ3964 ).
7.1. After comparing the signatures in Exts. P4 cheque and P10 voucher with the admitted signatures of the accused in his deposition as D.W. 1 and other admitted signatures, I entertain serious doubt as to the genuineness of the signatures on Ext. P4 cheque and Ext. P10 vouchee and also the writing of the name of the accused in Ext. P10. It will be unsafe, if not hazardous for the court to attempt a comparison unaided by the scientific opinion of an expert. I am therefore of the view that without getting an expert opinion regarding the above, this Court should not venture to decide the matter on the merits. I do not consider it necessary to set aside the impugned judgments and remit the entire case to the trial court. It will be sufficient to call for a finding from the trial Court. Even though this is a revision it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction is another facet of the appellate jurisdiction. (Vide Shankar Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattaraya Bapat : [1970]1SCR322 , Thambi v. Mathew 1987 (2) KLT 848, State of Kerala v. Ussain 1990 (1) KLT 498). If so, this Court can invoke the power under Section 391(1) Cr.P.C. read with Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC. and direct the trial Magistrate to send the disputed signature in Ext. P4 cheque and the disputed writing of the name of the accused and the disputed signature in Ext. P10 voucher to the handwriting expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for comparison with the admitted writings and signatures of the accused. The records in this case shall, accordingly be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta who shall send the disputed signature in Ext. P4 cheque and the disputed writings including the signature in Ext. P10 voucher to the handwriting expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for comparison with the admitted writings and signatures of the accused. After receipt of the report from the expert, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall record his findings in that behalf and forward the findings to this Court within four months of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties shall appear before the trial Magistrate on 8-8-2007 without any further notice. The lower court records shall be forwarded to the trial Court forthwith.
Post the above Crl. R.P. No. 12-12-2007.