Nirmal Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127194
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantNirmal Chand
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m-43632-2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m-43632-2013 date of decision: 11.02.2014 nirmal chand ......petitioner versus state of punjab and another .........respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice m.m.s.bedi present: mr.d.s.gurna, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.r.p.s.sidhu, a.a.g.punjab, for the state. mr.raman mohinder, advocate, for respondent no.2. ***** m.m.s.bedi, j. (oral) petitioner is the complainant in a case of cheating against his brother. the story of the prosecution is that the brother of the petitioner had forged signatures of complainant on an affidavit submitted before the punjab state power corporation ltd.for getting the electricity connection transferred in his name. in order to substantiate the allegations the prosecution had relied upon the report ex. pw-2/a-1 prepared by handwriting and finger prints expert-navdeep gupta while he was being examined as pw-5 on 22.09.2012. his further examination-in-chief was deferred for want of original record. his further examination-in-chief was recorded on 14.11.2013 and on that date only the photo copy of affidavit was available and the original record was not available. in the absence of original record a request was made for supplying original record for forming an opinion regarding the signatures on the original nitin documents. the app had made a request that, further examination-in-chief of 2014.02.18 10:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-43632-2013 -2- the witness should be deferred to give him an opportunity to examine the original documents and prepare his report. the said request was declined. aggrieved by the said action of the trial court, the present petition under section 482 of criminal procedure code has been filed. it is a basic rule of evidence that a duplicate document or contents of the duplicate document can be proved by producing the original document. even an expert is required to examine the original document for comparison of the signatures on the same. in the present case the report seems to have been prepared on the basis of photo copy before lodging of the fir. in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the request of app for deferring the examination-in-chief and to give an opportunity to seek a report on the basis of the original documents which is already on record and to prepare a report does not seem to be illegal. the report prepared on the basis of the original document regarding the disputed signatures on the affidavit is necessary for the decision of the case. the endeavor of the trial court for expeditious disposal of the matter is appreciable but at the same time the interest of justice demands that a report which is to be relied upon has to be a fair report. this court does not expect the trial court to permit the preparation of fresh report on the basis of original document but it would have been proper for the trial court to enable the handwriting experts to have a look at the original document and the photo copy of the document to form an opinion that the report prepared by him is valid qua the original document. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only prayer of the petitioner is that handwriting expert may be permitted to have a look at the photo copy of the original document to enable him to depose that the report prepared by him ex. pw-2/a-1 is valid qua the original of the affidavit alleged to have been signed by ram lal-respondent no.2. nitin 2014.02.18 10:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-43632-2013 -3- this petition is disposed of with the observation that the trial court shall permit the re-examination of navdeep gupta-pw-5 in the exercise of powers under section 311 cr.p.c for giving fair opportunity to both the parties examination and cross-examination of the witness. it is left to the discretion of the trial court to issue any direction in the interest of justice pertaining to the original document. parties are directed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed. nothing said in this order will prejudice the right of accused at the time of final decision before the trial court. (m.m.s.bedi) judge february 11, 2014 nitin nitin 2014.02.18 10:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM-M-43632-2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43632-2013 Date of Decision: 11.02.2014 Nirmal Chand ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present: Mr.D.S.Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.R.P.S.Sidhu, A.A.G.Punjab, for the State.

Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

***** M.M.S.BEDI, J.

(ORAL) Petitioner is the complainant in a case of cheating against his brother.

The story of the prosecution is that the brother of the petitioner had forged signatures of complainant on an affidavit submitted before the Punjab State Power Corporation LTD.for getting the electricity connection transferred in his name.

In order to substantiate the allegations the prosecution had relied upon the report Ex.

PW-2/A-1 prepared by Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert-Navdeep Gupta while he was being examined as PW-5 on 22.09.2012.

His further examination-in-chief was deferred for want of original record.

His further examination-in-chief was recorded on 14.11.2013 and on that date only the photo copy of affidavit was available and the original record was not available.

In the absence of original record a request was made for supplying original record for forming an opinion regarding the signatures on the original Nitin documents.

The APP had made a request that, further examination-in-chief of 2014.02.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43632-2013 -2- the witness should be deferred to give him an opportunity to examine the original documents and prepare his report.

The said request was declined.

Aggrieved by the said action of the trial Court, the present petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed.

It is a basic rule of evidence that a duplicate document or contents of the duplicate document can be proved by producing the original document.

Even an expert is required to examine the original document for comparison of the signatures on the same.

In the present case the report seems to have been prepared on the basis of photo copy before lodging of the FIR.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the request of APP for deferring the examination-in-chief and to give an opportunity to seek a report on the basis of the original documents which is already on record and to prepare a report does not seem to be illegal.

The report prepared on the basis of the original document regarding the disputed signatures on the affidavit is necessary for the decision of the case.

The endeavor of the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter is appreciable but at the same time the interest of justice demands that a report which is to be relied upon has to be a fair report.

This Court does not expect the trial Court to permit the preparation of fresh report on the basis of original document but it would have been proper for the trial Court to enable the handwriting experts to have a look at the original document and the photo copy of the document to form an opinion that the report prepared by him is valid qua the original document.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only prayer of the petitioner is that handwriting expert may be permitted to have a look at the photo copy of the original document to enable him to depose that the report prepared by him Ex.

PW-2/A-1 is valid qua the original of the affidavit alleged to have been signed by Ram Lal-respondent No.2.

Nitin 2014.02.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43632-2013 -3- This petition is disposed of with the observation that the trial Court shall permit the re-examination of Navdeep Gupta-PW-5 in the exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C for giving fair opportunity to both the parties examination and cross-examination of the witness.

It is left to the discretion of the trial Court to issue any direction in the interest of justice pertaining to the original document.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed.

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the right of accused at the time of final decision before the trial Court.

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 11, 2014 nitin Nitin 2014.02.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh