fingerprint
fingerprints
fingerprint experts fingerprint expert
fingerprint identification
fingerprint reader
handwriting fingerprint experts
fingerprint recognition
fingerprint evidence
QUICK LINKS
     
 
fingerprint expert  
 
     
 
fingerprint expert  
 
     
 
fingerprint expert  
 
     
 
fingerprint forensic  
 
     
 
fingerprint forensic  
 
     
 
cross examination  
 
     
 
handwriting expert  
 
     
 
handwriting expert  
 
     
PRESS RELEASES
     
 
handwriting identification   The Hindustan Times dated 18/02/96
    says, “......In today’s proceedings, which lasted for about five hours, (at Jaipur) he (Mr. Bansi Lal Gupta, the Returning Officer for Rajya Sabha elections) Read More
 
     
 
handwriting analysing   International Herald Tribune dated
    08/09/03 says, “Ashok Kashyap, a New Delhi-based Handwriting Expert with 40 years of experience Read More
 
     
 
handwriting expert   DELHI MID DAY dated 31/07/92 says,
    “Ashok Kashyap is a unique crime buster. His Forgery Detection Bureau Read More
 
     
 
handwriting expert   THE HINDU dated 02/08/91
    (Gurgaon Edition) says, “Mr. Ashok Kashyap runs a Private Bureau for detecting forgery Read More
 
     
CONTACT
     
 

PT. ASHOK KASHYAP, Director

Kashyap's International Forgery Detection Bureau
(Estd. Since 1935, Oldest running office in India / Asia )
Above C-Lal Chemist, Opp. Ritz Cinema, 1/1422,  Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110006 (INDIA)
Phone : (O) +91 011 23983019
Telefax : (R) +91 011 27603244
Mobile : +91 9810379221
E-mail : akdirector@hotmail.com
                 ak_fingerprintexperts@hotmail.com
 
     
 
questioned

ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES (OPINIONS & JUDGMENTS) :

 

ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES (FOR OPINION) FOREIGN HIGH COURTS & SUPREME COURT INCLUDING THEIR JUDGMENTS:


A.   ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FOR OPINION (LOWER COURTS)
B.   ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FROM LOWER COURTS FOR EVIDENCE INCLUDING COMMISSIONS.
C.   ALL INDIA COURT JUDGMENTS INCLUDING SUBORDINATE COURTS, HON’BLE HIGH COURTS, HON’BLE SUPREME COURT & FOREIGN COURTS:-

 
(I) BRIEF LIST OF SOME PLACES FROM DIFFERENT STATES OF INDIA FROM WHERE CASES WERE RECEIVED FOR OPINION OR EVIDENCE OR BOTH FROM COURTS INCLUDING OTHER SOURCES:
forgery
ANDHRA PARDESH
Addanki, Armoor, (Atmakur, Distt. Nallore), Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar, Ankapalli, Adilabad, Asifabad, Anantapur, Adoni, Allagada, Amalapuram, Avanigadda, Badvel, Bhimavaram, Boblli, Bodhan, Bichkonda, Bhongir, Bapatla, Bheemuipatnam, Chennur, Cheepurpulli, Chittoor, Chirala, Cuddapah, Chilkalurpet, Chodvaram, Darsi, Dhamavaram, Devarkonda, Dhone, Eluru, Gooty, Gadwal, Gudiwada,Gujuwaka, Gudur, Guntur, Gannavaram, Gajapathi Nagram, Giddalur, Gurzala, Guntakal, Hyderabad, Hindupur, Huzurabad, Ichapuram, Jagtial, Jaggayyapeta, Jammalamadugu, Jangaon, Kakinada, Kakkalur, Karimnagar, Kavali, Koilkuntla, Kurnool, Kovur, Kanigiri, Kodangal, Kollapur, Kotabommali, Kothagudam, Kodangal, Kandukur, Kadiri, Khammam, Kothapeta, Kamalapuram, Karimnagar, Kovvur, Lakkireddipalli, Luxettipet, Macharla, Medak, Medchal, Machillipatanam, Madanapalle, Madhira, Mahaboobnagar, Metapalli, Mancharial, Markapur, Mahabubabad, Miryalaguda, Nadikotkur,  Nagari, Nagarkurnool, Nakrekal, Narayankhed, Nandalur, Nandyal, Narayanpet, Narsipatnam, Nellore, Narsipatnam, Narsapur (WG), Narsaraopet, Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Nuzvid, Ongole, Parchur, Pattikonda, Peddapalli, Penukonda, Proddatur, Parvathipuram, Ponnur, Palakol, Peddapuram, Podili, Pakala, Pathapatnam, Pithapuram, Pargi, Piler, Punganur, Puttur, Repallie, Rajam, Rajampet, Rangareddy, Ramachndrapuram, Rayachoti, Rajahmundary, Razole, Secunderabad, Sattanapalli, Sangareddy, Siddipet,  Sirpur, Sompeta, Sattupalli, Sircilla, Srikalahasti, Sullurpet, Tadpatri, Tekkali, Tenali, Thabalapalle, Tuni, Tiruvuru, Tanuku, Tirupati, Tandur, Thambhapalle, Tadepalligudam, Thiruvuru, Urvakonda, Vyalpadyu, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Vizianagaram, Vikarabad, Venkatagiri, Warangal, Wanaparthy, Yammiganur, Yellandu, Yellamanchili. ............................................................................................. 162 Towns
Note: Expert Ashok Kashyap has appeared and attended personally Hon’ble Courts in A.P. in scores of cases at more than 60 places to give evidence. He has also given evidence on Commission in hundreds of cases received for Examination from various Hon’ble AP Courts in atleast 80-100 different places in Andhra Pradesh during last 30 years.
 
ASSAM
Karimganj, Guwahati....................................................................... 02 Towns
 
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Tinsukia............................................................................................ 01 Town
 
BIHAR
Hazipur, Katihar, Lakhisarai, Patna, Samastipur ................................ 05 Towns
 
CHHATTISGARH:
Rayagarh.......................................................................................... 01 Town
 
DELHI
Delhi, New Delhi, Hon’ble High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court & various Subordinate Courts
 
HARYANA
Ambala, Bhiwani, Bahadurgarh, Dadri, Faridabad, Fatehabad, Gohana, Gurgaon, Hissar, Hansi, Jhajjar, Jind, Karnal, Mahindergarh, Narnaul, Palwal, Panipat, Rohtak, Rewari, Sirsa, Sonepat, Yamuna Nagar 
 
HIMACHAL PRADESH
Dharamshala................................................................................. 01 Town
 
GUJRAT
Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat........................................................ 03 Towns
 
JAMMU & KASHMIR
Jammu, Srinagar, Shoplan, Sonawari............................................. 04 Towns
 
JHARKHAND
Bokaro, Dhanbad, Garhwa, Jamshedpur......................................... 04 Towns
 
KERALA
Alappuzha, Cochin, Chettur, Challukudi, Ernakulam, Kalpetta, Kasragod, Kodungalur, Kottayam, Kozhikode, Kollam, Kuthupuramba, Manjeri, Mallapuram, Palakkad, Pathanamthitta, Pattambi, Thalassery, Trichur, Thodupuzha, Thiruvalla, Thiruvananthapuram......... 22 Towns
 
KARNATAKA
Bangaluru, Bhatkal, Chickmuglur, Gulbarga, Hadagalli, Hubli, Humnabad, Tiptur, Pandavpura ..................................................................................................... 09 Towns
 
MADHYA PRADESH
Gwalior, Indore, Jabalpur, Kukshi, Raipur......................................... 05 Towns
 
NAGALAND
Dimapur, Kohima........................................................................... 01 Towns
 
ORISSA
Behrampur, Bhawanipatna, Bhadark, Chatrapur, Cuttak, Deogarh, Jharsaguda, Jeypore, Kuchinda, Nuapada, Pattamundal, Puri, Rayagadda, Sambalpur, Sonepur....................................................................................... 15 Towns
 
PUNJAB
Amritsar, Chandigarh, Jalandhar.................................................... 03 Towns
 
RAJASTHAN
Alwar, Bharatpur, Chittaurgarh, Kota, Rajgarh, Sikar ...................... 06 Towns
 
WEST BENGAL
Asansol, Coochbihar, Kolkata, Midnapore .................................... 04 Towns
 
TAMILNADU
Chennai, Pondicherry, Salem, Madurai, Vellore............................... 05 Towns
 
MAHARARASHTRA
Aurangabad, Mumbai, Kolhapur, Nagpur, Wardha.......................... 05 Towns
 
GOA
Panaji.......................................................................................... 01 Town
 
UTTAR PRADESH
Agra, Amroha, Aligarh, Badaun, Bansagaon, Bansi, Basti, Bareilly, Bijnour, Bullandshar, Chandausi, Deoband, Deorla, Etah, Eatwah, Farrukhabad, Faizabad, Firozabad, Ghaziabad, Gonda, Gorakhpur, Hapur, Hathras, Kanpur, Kasia, Khurja, Kannauj, Kirana, Kashipur, Lucknow, Moradabad, Mathura, Mainpuri, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Noida, Roorkee, Rampur, Sambahal, Saharanpur, Shikohabad
 
UTTRAKHAND
Almora, Dehradun, Haridwar, Pauri-Garhwal, Lansidown, Nainital, Tehri-Garhwal, Uttarkashi, Roorhkee, Rishikesh, Ranikhet.................................................... 11 Towns
 
(II) SELECTED ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FOR OPINION:
 
ANDHRA PRADESH (OPINIONS)
  1. Sri V. Balram Hon’ble 2nd Sr. Civil Judge, Hyderabad (A.P.) vide his letter dated 01/05/98 in O.S. No.70/95 says, “…..you are requested to send your report and opinion on or before 30th June 98.”

  2. Sri B. Girja Manohar, Hon’ble Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Tirupati (A.P.) in O.S. No.198/2000 vide letter dated 25/06/02 says, “….. Hence, you are hereby requested to examine & to determine the age of the ink used by the attestator & scribe & also the age of the ink used by the petitioner’s signatures on Ex.A-1 to determine which is old & which is new…..”

  3. Smt. C. Satyaveni, Hon’ble 3rd Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Cuddapah (A.P.) in O.S. No.456/95 vide letter dated 02/07/99 says, “…..I am sending herewith the unregistered will dated 10/08/1920 (Ex.A-3) for fixing up the age of the ink and to give opinion whether Ex.A-3 is newly written on old stamped papers and secondly whether there is any erasing seen on both the documents.”

  4. Sri O. Uthama Reddy, Hon’ble Distt. & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (A.P.) (Former Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) in O.P. No. 289/93 vide his letter dated 01/05/98 says, “…..I am sending the following documents….. you are requested to examine…..and submit your opinion…..”

  5.  Sri N.V. Narayana Rao, Hon’ble Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Khammam (A.P.) vide letter dated 19/05/99 in A.S. No. 144/92 says, “….. I am sending herewith the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale….. along with…..in a sealed cover for comparison and to submit the expert’s opinion.”………………

  6.  Sri C. Gopala Reddy, Hon’ble 2nd Addl. Distt. Judge, Kurnool (A.P.) in O.S. No. 8/79 vide letter dated 10/03/81 says, “…..You are permitted to apply reagents…..without causing damage to the original condition of the document and so you can proceed with the work…..being your opinion and ink examination fee as per your advance bill will be sent to you.”

  7. Sri K. Ashok Babu, Hon’ble Sub-Judge, Miryalguda (A.P.) in O.S. No. 13/92 vide commission warrant dated 14/09/94 says, “…..Whereas it is requested in the above IA to send the document i.e. Ex.A-1 to Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert, New Delhi….. You are hereby appointed as Commissioner to take the said Ex.A-1 personally to Pt. Ashok Kashyap, after fixing up an appointment with him and get the document examined in your presence and also get opinion with regard to determination of age of body and signature of executants of the said document. Ex.A-1…..You are further directed to submit your report on or before 28th October, 1994…..”

  8. Sri V. Niranjan Rao, Hon’ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Nizamabad (A.P.) vide letter dated 03/04/98 in R.C. No. 26/96 says, “….. Therefore you are hereby requested to examine the documents and to send the opinion on the above points (opinion on age of ink, of the typewriting and signatures of the witnesses on the documents) and return the same along with your opinion…..”

  9. Sri G.V. Seethapathy, Prl. Distt. Munsif, Chittoor (A.P.) in O.S. No. 33/86, dated 30/11/89 says, “...The Commissioner recorded the evidence of Ashok Kashyap (Expert) I do not find any discrepancy in the evidence of Handwriting Expert. I say that endorsement is forged (as opined by the expert).”

  10. Sri. M. Bhaskar, Hon’ble 2nd Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) in O.S. No. 98/96 dated 17/10/2000 says, “…..I transmit certain documents in O.S. No. 98/96 for examination and for your opinion.”

  11. Sri J. Shyamasundra Rao, Hon’ble 1st Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Warangal (A.P.) vide letter dated 31/01/2000 in O.S. No. 12/98 says, “…..I request you to come over to Warangal for examination comparison and give opinion on the disputed documents in O.S. No. 12/98…..on or before 29/02/2000.”

  12. Hon’ble Add. Sr. Civil Judge, Civil Court, Tirupati (A.P.) vide letter dated 28/03/09 says, “……With reference to the above cited, I am forwarding herewith the suit promissory note dated…… for comparison of signature of ….. Hence, you are hereby requested to compare the signatures with admitted signatures of ….. And to submit your report by 17/04/09 and it should be treated as urgent”.

  13. Hon’ble 2nd Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Civil Court, Chittoor (A.P.) vide letter dated 25/09/10 says, “……I am herewith forwarding the original promissory note ….. Vakalat ….. and summons of defendant obtained in the public court…… in the presence of counsels concerned and give your opinion and report on or before 12/11/10 on which date the above suit is posted. Your fee will be sent by way of demand draft.”

  14. Sh. G.V. Krishanama Raju, Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Vijayawada (A.P) O.S. No. 276/04, vide letter dated 03/07/06 says, “….With reference to the above, I am herewith sending the Original Promissory note on the file of this court for ascertaining the age of the signatures of the defendants with the other handwritings in the promissory note….. I request you to examine the same and send your report at an early date.”

  15. Shri B. Girja Manohar, Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in OS No. 198/2000 vide letter dated 25.6.2002 says, “ ...... Hence you are herby requested to examine & to determine the age of the ink used by the attestor & scribe & also the age of the ink  used by the petitioner’s signatures on Ex. A-1 to determine which is old & which is new .....”

  16. Smt. C. Satyaveni, Hon’ble IIIrd Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah vide letter dated 2.7.99 in OS No. 456/95 says, “ ..... I am sending herewith the unregistered will dated 10.8.1920 (Ex. A-3) for fixing up the age of the ink and to give opinion whether Ex. A-3 is newly written on old stamped papers and secondly whether there is any erasing seen on both the documents ... examination of old document”.
  17. Sh. N Venkatesham, Hon’ble IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in OS No. 91/96 vide letter dated 28.8.2000 says, “ ...... Therefore, I request you to compare & send the report ..... an amount of Rs. 10000/- is being fixed tentatively as expert fee.....”
  1. Shri C. Vijaya Mohan, Hon’ble Munsif Magistrate, Sattupalli, Khammam vide letter dated 6.8.97 in CC No. 180/90 says, “ ....... The Sub-inspector of Police, Sattupalli is hereby informed that the witness Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Examiner of Questioned documents, Delhi requested in his letter (date 26.7.97) ...... towards his fee, as he was also examined in another case ...... Hence you are hereby directed to take steps to get the said amount (Rs. ___) deposited by the concerned  party in this court immediately .....”
  1. Shri C. Gopala Reddy, Hon’ble II nd Addl. Dist. Judge, Kurnool vide letter dated. 10.3.81 in OS No. 8/79 says,     “ ..... You are permitted to apply reagents ..... without causing damage to the original condition of the document and so you can proceed with the work ..... being your opinion and ink examination fee as  per your advance bill will be sent to you.”            Examination of Age of Ink
  1. Shri N. Venkatesham, Hon’ble Sub Judge, Siddipet (Medak) vide letter dated. 6.4.92 in OS No. 29/88 says, “ ...... Hence you are requested to compare the signatures (and the impressions) of the above named plaintiff and send your opinion at the earliest ......”

    20a.)   Shri V. Rajareddy, Advocate/Commissioner, Siddipet (Medak) vide letter dated. 27.3.93 in OS No. 29/88 on the file of the Hon’ble sub Judge, Siddipet says, “ ....... I have been appointed as a Commissioner in OS No. 29/88 on the file of Sub Judge, Siddipet to record your evidence on your report ......  I am coming to your office on the 7th day of August ‘93 at about 10.30 a.m. to record your evidence on your report ......”
 
  1. Shri K. Ashok Babu, Hon’ble Sub Judge, Miryalguda (Nalgonda) in OS No. 13/92 vide commission warrant dated. 14.9.94 says, “ ...... Whereas it is requested in the above IA to send the document i.e. Ex. A-1 to Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert, New Delhi ..... You are hereby appointed as Commissioner to take the said Ex. A-1 personally to  Pt. Ashok Kashyap, after fixing up an appointment with him and get the document examined in your presence and also get opinion with regard to determination of age of body and signature of executant of the said document. Ex. A-1 ...... You are further directed to submit your report on or before 28th October, 1994 .....”....................................................... Examination of Age of Ink
  1. Shri V. Niranjan Rao, Hon’ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad vide letter dated. 3.4.98 in RC No. 26/96 says, “ ...... therefore you are hereby requested to examine the documents and to send the opinion on the above points (opinion on age of ink, of the typewriting and signatures of the witnesses on the documents) and return the same alongwith your opinion.....”................................................................. Examination of Age of Ink

  2. The Central Nazir, Hon’ble Dist.  & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad vide the summons issued on 2.8.99 pertaining to suit No. RC 26/96, K. Ramasway Vs. S.K. Mohd. Pertaining to the court of Rent Controller (Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad) says, “ ......  Whereas your attendance is required to attend the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad to give your evidence on behalf of the petitioner/Respondent in the above suit ..... You are hereby required (personally) to appear before this court on 31st day of August ‘99 at 10.30 O’clock ...... a sum of Rs. 11775/- being your travelling and other expenses and subsistence allowance for one day is herewith sent ......”

  3. Sh. M. Bhaskar, Hon’ble II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam in OS No. 98/96 dated. 17.10.2000, says, “ ..... I transmit certain documents in OS No. 98/96 for examination and for your opinion.”
  4.            
  5. Shri C. Jacob, Hon’ble Sub Judge, Vizianagaram vide letter dated. 18.6.87 in OS No. 1/79 says, “ ........ I request the ages of ink of signatures of second party and signatures of attestors 2 and 3 and the ages of the ink of first party and first attestor in Ex. B-1 is to be determined. I request you to send your opinion at an early date .....” Examination of Age of Ink
  1. Shri P. David, Hon’ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram vide letter dated. 26.3.99 in OS No. 7/77 says, “ ...... I therefore request you to submit your opinion along with photographs at an early date”.

    26a.)  Shri N. Raghuram, Advocate/Commissioner, Parvathipuram vide letter dated. 1.8.99 says, “ ..... I have been appointed as an Advocate/Commissioner in OS No. 7/77 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram for the purpose of recording your evidence in connection with your expert opining in the above matter”.
 
  1. Shri J. Shyamasundra Rao, Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Warangal vide letter dated. 31/1/2000 in OS No. 12/98 says, “ ...... I request you to come over to Warangal for examination, comparison, and give opinion on the disputed documents in OS No. 12/98 ...... on or before 29/2/2000.”

    27a.)   Shri M.E.N. Patrudu, Hon’ble Dist.  & Sessions Judge, Warangal (Formerly Registrar (VIG) High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad) vide letter dtd. 3.7.2000 in OS No. 12/98 says, “ ...... I am forwarding herewith cheque for Rs. _________ issued in favor of you towards TA/DA and witness batta (for giving evidence at Warangal) in OS No. 12/98 on the file of I Addl. Dist. Court, Warangal .......”
 
  1. Shri Sambasivarao Naidu, Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in OS No. 101/2005 vide letter dated 28/03/2009 says, “...Submit your report by 17/04/2009 and it should be treated as urgent”.

    Note: The evidence on commission in the above suit was recorded by Shri D. Srikanth Advocate, Tirupathi at our office in Delhi.
ASSAM
  1. Hon’ble Munsif 1st, Karimaganj (Assam) in M.S. 14/82 vide letter dated 10/08/83 says, “……I have to mention that the suit was decided (on your report) and is now pending trial in the Appellate Court.”
  2. Hon’ble Munsif, 3rd Karimganj (Assam) in T.S. No. 125/78 vide letter dated 27/05/83 says, “…..I beg to forward herewith the Kabala dated…..and request you to examine….. and to opine whether the signatures are of same person or not with that of said Kabala.”
BIHAR & JHARKHAND
  1. Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Lakhisarai (Bihar) in Title Suit (Probate) case No. 18/98…. vide his letter dated 19/12/08 says, “…….On the subject noted above, I am sending herewith the photographs ….. You are requested to examine the signature of …… and to send the report to this Court immediately …….................”
  2. Shri P.K. Sinha, Sub Judge-II, Court, Dhanbad vide letter dated. 20.5.81 in TS No. 34/77 says, “ ..... you are requested to send a copy of the bill (for examination and opinion) at an early date.”
  3. Sri P.K. Sinha, Sub-Judge-II, Court Dhanbad (Jharkhand) vide letter dated 20/05/81 in T.S. No. 34/77 says, “…..you are requested to send a copy of the bill (for examination and opinion) at an early date.”
  4. Hon’ble Munsif, Garhwa, Distt. Palamau (Jharkhand) in T.S. 11/82 vide his letter dated 09/02/85 says, “….It is requested that your report must reach early.”
  5. Shri S.P. Sinha, Hon’ble IIIrd Addl. Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) vide letter dated 23/03/88 in Money Suit No. 37/87 says, “…..You are advised to send your report as early as possible.”
GUJARAT
  1. Hon’ble 3rd Jr. Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat (Gujarat) in Special Suit No.326/79 vide letter dated 28/03/84 says, “..…I am sending four Promissory Notes for your opinion”.
HARYANA
  1. The Manager, Haryana Financial Corporation, Nehru Ground, N.I.T. Faridabad (Haryana) vide letter dated 30/03/06 says, “…...Enclosed please find herewith a cheque…..for a sum of Rs. ______ being the Court Attendance Fee as per your bill….. in the captioned case.”
JAMMU & KASHMIR
  1. Hon’ble Sub Judge, Shopian (J & K) vide his letter dated 12/04/85 says, “……The fingerprints are sent to you for comparison and your expert opinion”.
KARNATAKA
  1. Shri A.L. Mahadevappa, Hon’ble Civil Judge, Chickmaglur (Karnataka) vide letter dated 25/11/87 in O.S. No. 115/85 says, “…..Therefore, you are hereby appointed as a Commissioner to examine and compare the signature of the defendant in the disputed documents.”
  2. Sh. A.L. Mahadevappa, The Civil Judge, Chickmaglur (Karnataka) in O.S. No. 2/80 vide his letter dated 02/06/87 says, “…..You are appointed as a commissioner to examine and compare the writings in the disputed documents to furnish your opinion. You are requested to execute the commission warrant and to submit the report.”
  3. Shri A.L. Mahadevappa, Hon’ble Civil Judge, Tiptur (Karnataka) vide letter dated 03/10/88 in O.S, No. 59/82 says, “…..submit your opinion to this court on the points set out in detail in the annexed letter.”
KERALA
  1. Hon’ble Judl. 1st Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha (Kerala) in C.C.No.222/07 vide letter dated 21/11/08 says, “….. I am enclosing herewith a crossed Demand Draft bearing No……. towards the opinion fee….. I therefore, request you to send your opinion…… at the earliest.”
  2. Hon’ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Earnakulam in C.C. No. 203/97 vide letter dated. 26.4.2002 says, “ ........ I am forwarding herewith to ..... a D.D. for Rs. ______ towards examination fee.”
  3. The Hon’ble Munsif, Kalpetta (Kerala) in O.S. No. 501/90 vide letter dated 05/03/93 says, “…..A. D.D. for Rs…..being your opinion fee is enclosed.”
  4. Hon’ble Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-I, Patanamthitta (Kerala) vide letter dated 05/06/02 says, “…. I am forwarding herewith a D.D…..(for opinion).”
  5. Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, Kerala vide letter dated 21/02/2011 in O.S.No.99/08 says, “I am forwarding herewith a Cheque bearing No._______ to determine the age of signature and …..the writings….. you are requested to send your report regarding the same to this Court at an early date.”
  6. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kuthuparamba vide letter dated. 15.11.99 in C.C. No. 906/96 says, “ ....... I am forwarding herewith the document in question in case No. 906/96 on the file of this court for expert opinion.”
  7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) in C.C. No. 61/95 vide letter dated 13/12/99 says, “…..Hence you are requested to compare the above document and forward you expert opinion to this court on the matter.”
  8. Hon’ble 3rd Addl. Sub Judge, Kozhikode (Kerala) in O.S. No.105/97 vide letter dated 11/03/08 says, “……The (original) documents are sent herewith to ascertain the fact as to whether the signature and handwriting in Ext.P1 pro-note……is that of C.P. Indiradevi, who is the defendant in OS 105/97 on the file of this Court. It is requested that the opinion sought for as to the execution of impugned pro-note dated 08/07/94 may be made available to this Court within one week from the date of receipt of Bank demand draft….. sent to you…. For rendering the expert opinion sought for”.
  9. The Hon’ble Prl. Sub. Judge, Palakkad, vide letter dated. 18.3.98 in OS No. 534/95 says, “ ...... As per the reference cited above, I am forwarding herewith four documents. The signature in the agreement may be examined with ...... and reported.”
  10. The Hon’ble Sub Judge, Thodupuzha (Kerala) vide letter dated 12/07/94 in O.S. No. 48/88 says, “…..You are requested to ascertain whether the disputed promissory notes were executed by the defendants and file your expert opinion at the earliest”. 
    Note: Catholic Syrian Bank was the Plaintiff in this case.
  1. Hon’ble Sub-Judge, Tiruvalla (Kerala) in O.S.No.32/07 vide letter dated 02/06/09 says, “…..Hence I am forwarding herewith the following documents and requesting…..to send a detailed report…..in a sealed cover…..with all the documents at an early date”.
    Note: Shri M.R. Mohandas (Advocate), Tiruvalla, Kerala sent Court Summons, Air Tickets (Delhi to Cochin) & Fee Draft and accordingly the evidence of Expert Kashyap was recorded at Tiruvalla on 15/01/2010.
  1. Hon’ble Ist Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassary vide letter dtd. 6.10.90 in OS NO. 69/90 says, “ ...... Therefore, you are requested to proceed with the work and forward the report at an early date.”
MADHYA PRADESH
  1. Hon’ble Civil Judge (1st Class) Kukshi, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) in suit No. 48A/85 vide letter dated 24/10/90 says, “…..Kindly send your report on both the documents”.
ORISSA
  1. Hon’ble Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepur (Orissa) in suit No.38/02 vide letter dated 15/02/06 says, “……Report may be submitted at an early date (on original documents).”
  2. Hon’ble Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rayagada (Orissa) in O.S. No.4/04 vide letter dated 25/10/05 says, “.…I am sending herewith the admitted signatures numbering Six to be compared with the disputed signature ……for comparison”.
  3. Smt. Savita Das, Hon’ble Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Bhadrak (Orissa) in Ele Misc. Case No. 98/07 vide letter dated 27/12/08 says, “….I am sending herewith documents in Original i.e. Ext.-4 (Decree notice dated 29/07/06) for comparison of signature of Ramani Ranjan Das appearing in the Decree Notice … with the signature of said person… further you are requested to examine the disputed signatures in the document and send your report alongwith document at an early date”.
  4. Shri L.N. Patnaik, Hon’ble (Sr. Division) Puri (Orissa) vide letter dated 20/01/04 in T.S. No. 127/99 says, “…..I am enclosing herewith…..containing the disputed signatures…..for examination & report.”
  1. Shri L.N. Patnaik, Hon’ble Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Chatrapur (Orissa) in T.S,. No. 6/97 says, “ .. I am sending herewith .. you are directed to conduct the said Hand writing examination... a sum of Rs. ____ is dispatched.”

    5 (a).   Shri B.D.  Tripathi, Advocate, Berhampur, (Orissa) vide letter dtd. 27.6.2002 in T.S. No. 6/97 says, “ . .... The suit is posted for 11.7.2002. It was told that a sum of Rs. ____ is required for your attending before the Court (for giving evidence) at Chatrapur.”
 
UNION TERRITORY
  1. The 1st Addl. Sub Judge, Pondicherry (U.T.) in Suit No. 68/90 vide summons dated 27/07/92 says, “…..You are hereby summoned (to be present) to compare the signatures and report your opinion”.
(III) SELECTED ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FOR EVIDENCE INCLUDING COMMISSIONS:
 
ANDHRA PRADESH
  1. Sh. A. Venku Reddy, Hon’ble Distt. Judge, Rajamundary (A.P.) vide letter in O.S. No. 76/88 says, “…I am satisfied that Ashok Kashyap is a competent expert in the art of handwriting and can speak Authoritatively on it. I agree with the opinion expressed by him. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex-.A-3 is not a genuine letter.”   Recognition as an Expert...... JUDICIAL APPRECIATION
 
  1. Dy. Nazeer, In the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge of Tirupati (A.P.) in O.S. No. 241/03 vide summons dated 21/12/06 says, “….. You are hereby requested to give evidence with regarding to the expert opinion by you before the above court on 09/02/07 before the above court by 10.30 A.M. along with relevant documents, your travel and other expenses are deposited in the Court Account”.
  2. Central Nazeer, Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R. Distt. L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (A.P.) in O.S. No.162/96 vide summons dated 02/07/08 says, “ …. Whereas your attendance is required to adduce the evidence on behalf of the defendants in the above suit you are hereby required (personally) to appear before this Court on the day 15/07/08 at 10.30 O’clock”.
  3. Superintendent, Central Nazarat, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (A.P.) in OS No. 1323/1999 vide summons issued on 12/06/2007 says, “ …. Whereas your attendance is required to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in the above suit, you are hereby required (personally to appear) before this Court on the day 25/07/07 at 10.30 AM and bring with you the relevant and necessary material, corresponding to the opinion given by you earlier in the above said suit”.
  4. Sri S. Ravindra, Advocate, Rajampet (A.P) in O.S. No.  58/87 vide letter dated 11/03/93 says, “….. We would like to go over there (to your office at Delhi) on 28/03/93, if you are pleased to give the appointment….. I request you to give us your availability at Delhi at an early date and enable me to execute the commissioner’s warrant”.
  5. Sheristidar, Hon’ble Prl. Sub.-Judge, Guntur (A.P.) in O.S. No.243/84 vide summons issued on 20/04/95 says, “…. You are requested to attend the court for giving evidence in the above suit on 28/04/95 without fail at 10.30 a.m.”
  6. Sri T. Sundra Ramaiah, Hon’ble Prl. Sub.-Judge, Narsaraopet (A.P) in O.S. 389/88 vide letter dated 07/12/94 says, “…..The matter stands posted to 23/01/95 for your evidence (at Narsaraopet)….. you are requested to attend the court on 23/01/95 without fail”.
  7. Sri V. Rajareddy, Advocate/Commissioner, Siddipet, Medak (A.P) in O.S. No. 29/88 vide letter dated 27/03/93 on the file of the Hon’ble Sub-Judge, Siddipet says, “….. I have been appointed as a Commissioner in O.S. No. 29/88 in the file of Sub-Judge, Siddipet to record your evidence on your report….. I am coming to your office (at Delhi) on the 7th day of Aug., 93 at about 10.30 a.m. to record your evidence on your report.”
  8. Superintendent, Central Nazarat, II Addl. Distt. Court, Kakinada (A.P.), in OS No. 256/2002 on the File of Hon’ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, vide summons issued on 23/10/2010 says, “… Whereas your attendance is required to give evidence on behalf of the plantiffs in the above suit, you are hereby required (Personally) to appear before this Court on the 29/10/2010 at 10:30 AM, … and to bring the necessary record with you”.
  9. Head Clerk, Hon’ble VII Addl, JFCM at Warangal (A.P.) in CC No. 236/10 wide summons issued on
    13/06/2011
    says, “… Whereas your attendance is required to _________________ on behalf of _______ to appear in this court on the 20, June, 2011 at 10:30 AM.”
  10. Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, (A.P.) vide summons issued on 27/08/2011 in the case titled Ravuri Savitri Devi Vs. Karri Bhaskara Reddy in OS No. 75/96 says, “Whereas your attendance is required to give evidence in the above suit personally to appear before this Court on the 6/09/2011 at 10:30 AM and with the Opinion File No. 124/IE/29/10/2007”.
BIHAR & JHARKHAND
  1. Shri R.P. Yadav, Hon’ble Munsif-I, Samastipur (Bihar) in O.S. No. 24/86 vide letter dated 06/11/90 says, “…..you are therefore requested to attend the court to give evidence (in respect of your opinion dated 17/12/89) on 27/11/90 at 10.00 a.m. positively.”
  2. Hon’ble  Sub-Judge, Garhwa (Jharkhand) in suit No.18/92….. vide summons dated 11/07/94 says, “……. Whereas, your attendance is required to give evidence on behalf of the defendant in the above suit, you are hereby required personally to appear before this court on the 24th day of Aug., 1994”.
  3. Hon’ble Ist Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 8/85 vide summons issued on 04/02/1986 says, “… Whereas your attendance is required to adduce the evidence in the above suit, you are required (personally) to appear before this court on 28/02/1986”.
DELHI
  1. Ms. Deepali Sehgal, Advocate, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Hiralal Shroff & Co., Solicitors, Advocates & Notary, New Delhi vide letter dated 06/04/1993 says, “...This is to inform you that the captioned matter is listed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 27th & 28th of April 1993... You are requested to make it convenient to be present in Court on the said dates so that we may be able to complete your examination-in-chief”.
  2. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Probate Case No. 51/98 vide summons dated 16/07/02 says, “…..Whereas your attendance is required to give evidence on behalf of the Respondents in the above Probate, you are hereby required (personally) to appear before this Court on the 19th Aug., 02 and to give evidence about the alleged signature of….. on the Will dated……..…..”
  3. Hon’ble Registrar, The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide Summons dated 23rd Nov., 93 says, “...Whereas your attendance is required to give evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above suit, you are hereby required (personally) to appear before this Court on the 8th day of December 1993 at 10.30 A.M”.
  4. Sh. M. Sudhesh, Asst. Manager, Secretarial & Legal, Rubfila International Limited, Palakkad (Kerala) vide letter dated 04/09/2007 says, “... Kindly note, the subject case (O.S. No. 2497/1999) before the Hon’ble High Court (of Delhi) stands adjourned to 14/11/2007 for your cross examination”.
GUJRAT
  1. Shri Harshad Modi, Advocate, Nanpura, Surat (Gujarat) vide letter dated 01/04/08 says, “Your presence is required before Hon’ble 10th Sr. Civil Judge, Surat in Civil Suit No. 263/93 on 04/02/08 for the purpose of inspection and photography of the relevant documents in the Court”.
HARYANA
  1. The Branch Manager, Haryana Financial Corporation, Branch Office at Nehru Ground, Faridabad (Hr.) vide letter reference No. 5195 dated 30/03/2006 says, Enclosed please find a Cheque for a sum of Rs.…..being the Court (Yours Attendance Fee) for giving evidence in Suit for Declaration, mandatory Injunction & Permanent Injunction… Case No.-RBT-1030/22.09.2000/12.08.1992, In case of M/s. Evergreen Properties and others.".......................................... (At the District Court, Faridabad)
  1. Smt. Sangeeta Rai Sachdeva, Hon’ble Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani, (Haryana) in case No. 294/2006 Titled Shruti Chaudhary Vs. Ranbir Singh Mahindra & Otrs. vide summons issued on 25/10/2011 says, “… Information is conveyed that the witness should be present on 11/11/2011 at 10:00 AM (to give evidence pertaining to your report on the disputed signatures of Bansi Lal)”.............................................. Translated in English from Devanagri.
Note: The above case relates to the disputed Will purportedly containing the disputed signatures of Shri Bansi Lal, Hon’ble Ex-Defence Minister & Ex-Chief Minister of Haryana.
 
JAMMU & KASHMIR
  1. Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, High Court of J&K, Jammu vide email message dated 22/02/11 says, “...The complaint titled S.C. Associates Vs. J&K Bank is fixed for your evidence on 17/03/11 before J&K State Commission at Jammu. Your presence is required before J&K State Commission at Jammu to prove the report on signatures prepared by you”.
KERALA
  1. Central Nazeer, In the Court of Sub-Judge Thiruvalla (Kerala)  in O.S. No.32/07 vide summons dated 22/12/09 says, “……Whereas your attendance is required to the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District on behalf of the Plaintiff/Defendant in the above suit, you are hereby required to appear before this Court in person on the 15th day of January, 2010, at 11 O’clock …..and bring with you the documents.”
  2. Sh. A. Badarudeen (Advocate) Kollam (Kerala) in O.S. No.1340/98, vide letter dated 28/08/02 says, …. “The Hon’ble Judicial 1st Class Magistrate – I, Kollam has issued summons to you to be present in the court on 6th Sept., 02 for being examined as a witness. A flight ticket New Delhi – Thiruvananthapuram – New Delhi is enclosed herewith. You are requested to be present on 06/09/02 before Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam”.
  3. Shri. M.D. Sasikkumar (Advocate) Ayyappankavu Road (East) Kochi (Kerala) vide letter dated 23/09/2004 says “Expecting to meet you at Kochin on 28/09/2004 (for evidence) in C.C. No. 61/93 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. Sub. Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Ernakulam on 29/09/2004”.
  4. Central Nazeer, In the court of Hon’ble Prl. Sub. Judge, Thrissur (Kerala) in O. S. No. 421/2005 vide summons dated 30/04/2011 says, “Whereas your attendance is required to the Prl. Sub. Court, Thrissur, Kerala on behalf of the plantiff in the above suit, you are hereby required to appear before this Court in person on  31/05/2011 at 11 O’ Clock in the forenoon, and to bring with you the documents shown below”.
  5. Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur (Kerala) in CC No. 44/2000 vide summons dated 03/10/2011 says, “… Wherease complaint has been made before me that Sajeesh (Accused) is suspected to have committed the offence of U/S 420 IPC and it appears to me that you are likely to give material evidence regarding expert opinion of the said complaint, you are hereby summoned to appear before this court at CJM Court, Thrissure on 14/10/2011 at 11:00 AM in the forenoon/afternoon to testify what you know concerning the matter of the said complaint……”
MAHARASHATRA
  1. Sh. Chidanand Kapil, (Advocate) Mumbai vide letter dated 01/07/09 says, “…..You have already submitted your opinion dated 09/02/09 on the questioned signatures on the documents filed before the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice H. Suresh (Retd. High Court Judge) in the Arbitration proceedings in respect of petitions 26,27,28, 29, 30, 31, & 32 of 03 between….. Claimants and. …Respondents.”  Your attendance is required to give evidence in the above matter in Hotel Atithee, Mumbai on 07/07/09 before the above Hon’ble Court.”
  2. Sh. Rajendra B. Lule, Advocate, Wardha (Maharashtra) vide letter dated 23/02/10 says, “….. Spl. C.S.No. 27/02 Om Prakash Vs. Kishore is fixed for your cross examination on 22/03/10 at Wardha Civil Court. Please attend at 11.00 A.M. at Wardha."
MADHYA PARDESH
  1. Sh. M.M. Asudani, Advocate, Trade Centre, Indore (M.P.) says, “…..Your evidence is needed in the case titled Sameer Chawla Vs. Allied Asia Gears Limited on the file of Hon’ble 5th Vyavhar Nyayalaya Indore on 07/02/2004.
ORISSA
  1. Sheristedar, In the Court of, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Rayagada (Orissa) in O.S. 04/04 vide summons dated Nil says, “….. You are hereby required (personally) to appear before this Court on the 31st day of July 06 at 10.30 O’clock in the forenoon and to bring with you or to send to this Court, for your opinion…..”
  2. By order Sheristadar, Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dvn.) Bhadrak (Orissa) vide summons dated 05/09/05 says, “….Whereas your attendance is required to adduce evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff on the above suit, you are hereby required (personally) to appear before this court on 19 Sept. 2005….”
  3. Hon’ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chatrapur, District: Ganjam (Orissa) in Title Suit No. 3/97 says, “… you are hereby required (personally) to appear before the court on the 26/09/2002 at 10:30 AM (to give evidence) in the above suit”.

PONDICHERRY

  1. Hon’ble Ist Addl. Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, in OS No. 68/1990 vide summons issued on 01/04/1993 says, “… You are hereby summoned to appear before the …. Judge of this Court in person on the 21/04/1993… to give evidence on behalf of the defendant… and … to produce the documents in connection with your opinion… and give evidence”.

    1 (a).   Sh. R. Balaraman, Advocate, Ex. Bar President, Bar Association, Pondicherry, vide letter dated 09/06/94 says, “….. As per the order passed by the learned 1st  Addl. Sub Judge of Pondicherry, you are permitted to cross examine the handwriting expert (in respect of opinion filed by you in favor of defendant)…… In O.S. No. 68/90 which is posted on 15/06/94…… Therefore, you have to appear before the court on 15/06/94 to cross examine…… Kindly make necessary arrangements to come to Pondicherry for cross-examination”. .......Permission granted by Hon’ble Court to cross examine the expert from the opposite party (as per the Court Ruling given below):-

    Cross Examination by Experts — whether permissible:- “Recognised agents can examine and cross-examine witnesses, though he cannot plead (under special Power of Attorney). Re.: Governor General in Council. A.I.R. 1948 East Punjab 61.
 
TAMILNADU
  1. By order Sheristedar, Hon’ble Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in M.P No.2293/08 vide the summons, dated 09/03/10 says, “…..Whereas, complaint has been made before me that N.V.P. has committed the offence of…… 465, 466 IPC….. and it appears to me that you are likely to give material evidence for the prosecution….. You are hereby summoned to appear before this Court on the 17/03/10 at 10.00 O’clock… to testify what you know concerning the matter of the said complaint…..Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on (09/03/10)…………..”
UTTAR PRADESH
  1. Sh. Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, Advocate, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) vide letter dated 11/08/04 says, “Your presence is required for giving evidence in respect of your opinion dated 26/05/04 in case State Vs. K.K. Saini & Ors, C.C. No.03/94 on the file of Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge (TADA Court) Kanpur on 11/08/04 & cross examine the expert (from the C.F.S.L., New Delhi).”
  2. Hon’ble Special Court-1 (CBI), Ghaziabad (UP) vide summons issued on _________ in case CBI, Ghaziabad Vs. Pankaj Kumar Jain says, “…The Summons are sent so that you may appear before this court on 05/07/2011… (for giving evidence pertaining to your report)”.
WEST BENGAL
  1. Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta in case A. Gupta vs. S. Gupta (C/882/05) vide Summons dated 23/08/2012 says, “…..And it appears to me that you are likely to give material evidence for the Prosecution /defence, you are here by summoned to appear before this court on 26/09/2012… To testify what you know concerning the matter...”.
(IV) SELECTED REFERENCES FROM EXTRACTS OF ALL INDIA COURT JUDGMENTS PERTAINING TO  (a) SUBORDINATE COURTS (b) HON’BLE HIGH COURTS, HON’BLE SUPREME COURT INCLUDING (c) FOREIGN COURTS:
 
(a) SUBORDINATE COURT JUDGMENTS:
 
ANDHRA PRADESH (A.P.)
  1. Sh. S. Ramakrishna Reddy Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi (A.P) in O.S. No. 30/88 (D.D. 21/01/93) says, “….. The contention of the defendant is that Ex.A-1 is a forged document. His contention is supported by the handwriting Expert (Ashok Kashyap).…..The handwriting expert has categorically stated in his report that the disputed signature in Ex.A-1 is forged one ….. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex.A-1 is not executed by the defendant (as opined by Ashok Kashyap).”
  2. Kum. Y.H. Prameela Reddy. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S. No. 797/98 (D.D. 14/03/2000) says, “….. Both sides have adduced evidence. The handwriting expert. Pt. Ashok Kashyap was examined as P.W.2. The handwriting expert is not an interested witness. Moreover as per his testimony he got very good reputation in his field as a Handwriting Expert. …. Nothing contrary was elicited by the defence counsel throughout the cross examination of P.W.2. Though, he was confronted in all aspects. …. In view of the Experts report Ex.C-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 it is very clear that Ex. B-1 is not containing the signature of the plaintiff and they were forged”.
  1. Sh. A. Venku Reddy, Hon’ble District Judge Rajammundry (A.P.) in O.S. No 76/88 (D.D. 01/02/*91) says, “….. I am satisfied that DW-3 (Ashok Kashyap) is a competent expert in the art of Handwriting. I agree with the opinion expressed by DW-3. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex-A-3 is not a genuine letter (As opined by Ashok Kashyap).”
  1. Kum.Y. Sujanakumari, Hon’ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ongole in O.S. No. 435/96 (DD. 10/12/02) says, “…..During pendency of the suit, Ex.B-1 was sent to the Govt. Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad for comparison of thumb impressions on Ex.B-1 at the instance of the defendants. The Expert PW-3 sent a report, marked as Ex.A-5 stating that for want of clear ridge characteristics, the thumb impression on Ex.B-1 is unfit for comparison. The Expert (M.N. Karunanidhi) gave evidence as PW-3 in support of his opinion. The defendants got Ex.B-1 sent for comparison of the thumb impression to Private expert by name PT. Ashok Kashyap of Delhi who gave opinion stating that the thumb impression on Ex.B-1 and the deposition of PW-1 are identical. He gave evidence as DW-6 in the court. He gave six identical features of thumb impression on Ex.B-1 and the thumb impression on the deposition. I feel that the opinion of DW-6 (Ashok Kashyap) can be considered in support of execution of Ex.B-1 by plaintiff…. “Government expert disbelieved.”
  2. Sh. G.V. Seethapathy, Hon’ble Prl. Distt. Munsiff, Kakinada (A.P.) in O.S. 877/79 (D.D. 13/05/85) says, “.PW-1 (Ashok Kashyap) submitted his report Ex.X-1 opinion that the disputed signatures Q-1 to Q-4 on the agreement dated 20/12/76 are not written by the writer of admitted signatures and that in other words, the disputed signature on the unregistered agreement are forged. The report of PW-1 is only an added circumstance which weighs against the contention of the defendant. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is held entitled for the injunction prayed for.”
  3. Sh. T. Pattabhi Ramarao, Hon’ble Distt. Munsiff, Tekkali (A.P.) in O.S. No. 273/87 (D.D. 06/11/92) says, “…..D.W.-2 is the fingerprint and handwriting expert (Ashok Kashyap). The learned counsel (for the defendant) further argued that the evidence of D.W.-1 is clear undoubted and unchallenged. The defendant has examined D.W.-2 who further opined that the old revenue stamps have been transplanted on Ex.A-1 pronote. Moreover the photographic enlargements made by the expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap placed the matter beyond doubt that the revenue stamps were transplanted in Ex.A-1 pronote…... Hence, I am inclined to accept the report of the expert, D.W.-2. The photo enlargements of the expert clearly show that the signatures of the defendant of the revenue stamp are extended with a different pen. Moreover Ex.A-1 clearly shows that revenue stamps were transplanted on Ex.A-1.”............................................................................................................. Court Recognition as an Expert
  4. Sh. J. Shyama Sundara Rao, Hon’ble 1st Addl. D.J. Warangal (A.P.) in O.S. No. 51/96 (D.D.17/08/98) says, “….. I do not find any reason to reject the evidence of DW-3, (Ashok Kashyap), in present case, the trial court (P.D.M. Warangal) did not give any reason as to why it has to come to a different conclusion than that of expert DW-3.” Hence, I have to say that the expert’s opinion has to be given credence. In the result the appeal is allowed, the trial court judgment and decree are set aside.”
 

ASSAM

  1. Munsif No.3, Karimganj (Assam) in T.S. 125/78 (D.D. 27/05/91) says, “…..This suit is decreed in terms of the Sulehnama (compromise Deed) filed by both the parties.

    Note:   (1) In this case documents were sent by the learned court to Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi, who opined that both the disputed signatures marked Q- & Q-2 reading ‘Akram Ali’ and ‘Makram Ali’ were written by both the defendants who have written the specimens marked S-1 to S-3 and S-4 to S-7 respectively.”
    (2) After the filing of the expert report, this case was compromised.
 
BIHAR
  1. Hon’ble 1st Munsif, As Trial Court, Samastipur in eviction case No.24/86 (D.D.27/03/91) says, “….. On the payment of the defendants…… the Expert Ashok Kashyap of Delhi, D.W.-22. The plaintiff got the report from another Expert (Shri S.K.C.) The report of the two experts are quite contradictory. Ashok Kashyap was subjected to long cross-examination but nothing was elicited so as to create any reasonable doubt with regard to his testimony. It can be legitimately inferred that the evidence of Ashok Kashyap is superior to that of the evidence of P.W.-18.”  I am of the view that the disputed agreement Ex-2 is forged & fabricated (as opined by Ashok Kashyap).”
HARYANA TRIAL COURT
 
  1. Hon’ble Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Panipat in execution case No.30/74 (D.D. 15/09/75 says, “….. The J.Ds have examined Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert. On the other hand the D.H. Has examined (Sh. R.P.S) Handwriting Expert as D.H.W.-1, who has expressed contrary views. I am of the opinion that the report of R.P.S. is quite vague and abstract without any objective effort to make his report convincing. I am not inclined to attach any weight to his report. On the contrary, the report of Ashok Kashyap is not only scientific and logical but also based on sound reasoning. The reasons adduced by him appear to be sound and acceptable. The execution of receipt Ex.09 has been proved to be genuine (as opined by Ashok Kashyap).................... AS FIRST APPELLATE COURT

    1a.)   Hon’ble District Judge, Karnal in civil Appeal No.187/13 of 1978 (D.D. 04/05/78) says, “…..This appeal is directed against the order of 15/09/75 passed by Shri K.C. Dang, Sub Judge, 1st Class, The D.H. controverted the pleas of the J.D. regarding the creation of the fresh tenancy (Alleging that the receipt Ex.-09 was false and fabricated). The appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”
 
JHARKHAND
 
  1. Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Deltonganj in M.A. 3/1984 (D.D. 30/04/88) says, “….P.W.-3 expert…..held his opinion in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also got another handwriting Expert examined as D.W.-3 (Ashok Kashyap of Delhi) and he gave just a contrary opinion. I find that the two experts were examined in the court below (Munsif, Garhwa) and they had given different opinions. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff after accepting the evidence of the plaintiff. I have myself looked to the disputed signatures. From the perusal of these handwritings by naked eye, it will appear that the writer of the specimen signatures was not the man who signed the disputed receipt (as opined by Expert Ashok Kashyap). The judgment and decree passed by the learned court below (Munsif-Garhwa) is hereby set aside”.  As First Appellate Court
 
KARNATAKA
  1. Sh. A.T. Munnoli, Prl. Munsiff, Hubli (Karnataka) in O.S. No. 378/89 (D.D. 21/08/89) says, “….. One Handwriting Expert PW-4 (Sh. A.L. Lingaiah), an Expert of Govt. of Karnataka at Bangalore has given his opinion. Another expert DW-3 (Ashok Kashyap) has given his opinion with detailed reasons. The report of PW-4 is not trustworthy. It is pointed out that PW-4 (A. L. Lingaiah) is not qualified, whereas Ashok Kashyap is duly qualified with the specific Science of Handwriting and has vast experience. It has been proved by defendant that the suit pronote is got up one, the suit is dismissed….. “Government Expert Disbelieved.....”   Court Recognition
KERALA
  1. Shri K.P John, Prl. Sub-Judge, Quilon (Kerala) in O.S. No. 08/81 (D.D. 21/12/91) says, “...The documents were sent to another expert Ashok Kashyap of Delhi for his opinion. He opined that the signatures were written by the defendant. I am of the opinion that the disputed signatures in Ex.A-3 were put by D.W.-1 himself. In the end, the plaintiff is given a decree.”
  2. Sri K.N. Sathesan, 1st Addl. Munsif, Ernakulam (Kerala) in O.S. NO. 638/81 (D.D. 17/01/91) says, “…..The documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert, Ashok Kashyap of Delhi for examination and opinion. I am satisfied that the signatures of the defendant are forged one. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert about the forged signature of the defendant corroborated by my own personal examination suggest that Ex.-A2 was not executed by the defendant. I am of the opinion that the document writer P.W.-2 should be proceeded against for the offence of giving false evidence before court (Punishable under IPC). I am inclined to accept the reports filed by Ashok Kashyap and accept his findings. In the result, the suit (of the plaintiff) is dismissed with costs.”
UTTAR PRADESH
  1. Hon’ble Judge, J.S.C.C. Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 305/78 decided on 03/10/80 observes: “Ashok Kashayp, Expert stated that the fingerprint and signature belong to the defendant and proved his report. There is nothing to disbelieve his report. Defendants have not filed any report in rebuttal. Plaintiff’s expert Ashok Kashyap’s report thus stands unchallenged.”
  2. Hon’ble 5th Addl. Munsif, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. 421/78 decided on 30/10/79 observes: “The report of D.W.-1 (Sh. B.N.S) is misleading. The opinion of P.W.-1 Ashok Kashyap deserves greater credibility.”
  3. Sh. K.D. Sahi, Munsif, Khalilabad at Basti (U.P.) (subsequently Hon’ble Justice Allahabad High Court) in O.S. No. 83/65 observes: “Mr Kashyap has gone a step further to Mr. Gregory Expert, Lucknow in establishing the identity of the prints.”
  4. Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (U.P.) in O.S. No. 12/77 decided on 10/08/81 observes: “There is nothing in the evidence of expert Ashok Kashyap that may discredit his opinion.”
  5. Hon’ble 3rd Addl. Dist. Judge, Etah (U.P.) as Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 128/80 decided on 26/03/83 observes : “The learned lower court (VI Addl. Munsif, Etah) discussed the expert evidence. In my opinion, the learned court did not rightly approve of the opinion of C.K. J., Expert, Lucknow (P.W.2). It accepted the opinion and evidence of Ashok Kashyap (D.W.1) and rejected the evidence of PW-2 (Expert on behalf of the Appellant). I myself saw and compared the signatures to arrive at the same conclusion at which Ashok Kashyap arrived.”
  6. Hon’ble 2nd Addl. District Judge, Moradabad (U.P.) in Rent Control Appeal No. 12/85 decided on 28/09/88 observes: “This is an appeal by the Tenant-Appellant. A compromise was filed in this appeal (by him). The respondents filed objections alleging the compromise to be forged. Both the Experts have filed their reports. The perusal of their reports shows that Ashok Kashyap is more qualified and experienced (than Expert produced by the Appellant). In the circumstances, the report of Ashok Kashyap carries more weight.”
(b) EXTRACTS FROM HON’BLE Supreme Court & High Court Judgments From various states of India & Abroad
 
  1. Shri S. Rajendra Babu & Shri D.P. Mohapatra Hon’ble Justices Supreme Court of India in case Mahaveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Naresh Chand & Ors. In (C.A. No. 6286 of 2000 (SLP(C) No. 14574/2000 Decided on 08/11/2000) say... “In the course of the trial, the original agreement of sale produced before the court was sent for scientific examination. PW-8, Ashok Kashyap, Who is stated to be handwriting & Fingerprint Expert, deposed that he has examined the original agreement to sell dated: 30/01/95 & Found evidence of interpolation at Pages 2 & 3” ....Recoginition as an Expert by Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India......... (AIR 2001 Sc. 134)
  1. Shri J.D. Kapoor, Hon’ble Justice High Court of Delhi in case Manmohan Singh & Ors. Vs. Joginder Kaur & Anr. In (Suit No. 921 of 1993 & Pr No. 38/1992 Decided on: 19/07/2002) says, “DW-5 Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting & Fingerprint Expert has examined the disputed signatures marked Q-1 to Q-6 on the Will dated: 06/08/1990 & Standard Signatures marked A-1 to A-9 & Specimen signatures marked S-1 to S-13. On comparison, he had come to the conclusion that the questioned signatures marked Q-1 to Q-6 on unregistered will dated 06/08/1990 did not tally with the standard signatures. In order to show that signatures of testator were forged, defendants produced Handwriting Expert (Ashok Kashyap). Not only the opinion of the handwriting expert is well considered & Sound one, but the comparison of signatures of the testator on both the wills shows marked difference”................ (AIR 2003 NOC 261, Delhi)
  2. Shri Badar Durrez Ahmed, Hon’ble Justice High Court of Delhi in case Mrs. Saraswati Chatterjee Vs. State, in (IA No. 4300/1996 in test case, 35/1995 decided on 13/03/2006) Says, “One Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting & Fingerprint Expert DW-7, was also examined and he also made a categorical statement that the signatures appearing at marked ‘A-2 & A-3’ in the said purported will appeared to be forged and do not appear to be the signatures of Smt. Shiailabala Kanjilal based upon a comparison with the admitted signatures of exhibit R2W-4/A at mark A, thereof. …the view taken by the learned additional sessions judge & High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference”. ............................ Recognition as an Expert ....(129(2006) DLT 204)
  3. Hon’ble Justice Shri S. Muralidhar, Delhi High Court, in case Mahesh Sharma Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in W.P. (C)  6623/1998 & cm appl 12281/1998 (DD  28/07/2011) says, “...The  report of the Inquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner by the DA by a letter dated 8th April 1997. The petitioner’s appeal against the aforementioned order of the DA (Disciplinary Authority) was dismissed by an order dated 24th June 1997 of the appellate authority.  The Petitioner thereafter submitted a review petition to the Director (Finance), BHEL on 26th March 1998. Thereafter, the present petition was filed”. ...In the present case, as far as the first article of charge is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has proceeded on the evidence of Mr. Dhirendera Krishna, General Manager Incharge (Finance), MW-4 as well as Mr. Ashok Kashyap, the handwriting expert, MW-3 (whose opinion obtained by BHEL.) ...The Inquiry Officer appears to have correctly analysed the evidence. The approach itself seems to be objective and fair.  ...For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. ...The writ petition and the pending application are dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. Recognition as an Expert
  4. Shri S.U. Khan, Hon’ble Justice High Court of Allahabad in case Keshav Ram (D) Through L. Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. Decided on 05/07/2007 says, “Against order dated 29/08/19__ appeal No. 291/39 was filed. S.O.C. recorded finding that the Sale Deed bore Thumb Impression of Smt. Chand & in that regard reliance was placed upon the report of Handwriting Expert Ashok Kashyap. His report & evidence was fully accepted by the S.O.C.”.             Recognition as an Ex
  1. Shri M.J. Vijayavardhan Rao, Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in case Pandu Vs. Yadgiri (R.A. No. 340 of 1987) dd 17/10/ 90 says, “When it was pointed out on behalf of the applicants that the Handwriting Expert PW-2 Shri Prakash Rao had no adequate experience, the disputed signature of the landlord on Ex.R-2 was referred to another Handwriting Exert Pt. Ashok Kashyap (of Delhi) by my predecessor in office. ….The said expert, who is examined as PW-3 before this court expressed the opinion that the disputed signature on EX.R-2 is forged & not written by the writer of standard signatures of S-series, Shyamdas. …on a comparison of the signatures, I am satisfied that the disputed signature is not that of Shyamdas PW-1 & I am inclined to accept the opinions given by (PW-2 prakash Rao) & (PW-3 Ashok Kashyap) that the disputed signature is a forged one”............... Recognition as an Expert
    Note: Above appeal is preferred by the tenent against the order dated 30/6/1987 passed by the First Additional rent controller, Hyderabad

    6 (a).   Hon’ble Mr. Justice I. Panduranga Rao, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, in C.R.P. No. 582/91 (D.D. 25.2.91) says, “……Both the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have arrived at concurrent, finding. I, therefore, do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below Both the learned courts below agreeing with the opinion of Expert, Ashok Kashyap, Delhi, that Ex. R2 is forged. The revision petition is dismissed”.
 
  1. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Baddam Pratap Reddy vs Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy,  APPEAL SUIT No.1404 of 2004 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.50168 of 2004 (DD on 12/06/2008) says “The suit for specific performance, being O.S.No.91 of 1996, on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff), was decreed on 05.12.2003... As first defendant pleaded forgery, he sought expert's opinion and at his instance, Ex.A.1 was sent to one Pt. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert of Delhi. The opinion given by him was marked as Ex.B.2, and he was examined as D.W.2. Learned trial Judge rejected the plea of forgery on the ground that the evidence of D.W.2 and Ex.B.2 - opinion, are not corroborated and no steps are taken by the first defendant in that direction.... Therefore, they would urge that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting Ex.B.2 and evidence of D.W.2. According to them, as per this evidence, the signature of first defendant on Ex.A.1 is a forged signature. ... After recording elaborate opinion, he opined that the disputed signature on Ex.A.1 is forged. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to examine D.W.2. In his examination he deposed that he studied in Guntur, and therefore, he knows Telugu.... D.W.2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the Counsel for the plaintiff on these aspects. D.W.2 did not budge nor Counsel was able to impeach him. It is admitted before this Court that D.W.2 is an expert, and therefore, this Court need not record a finding that he is an expert... Accordingly, the appeal, being A.S.No.1404 of 2004, is allowed, and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.91 of 1996, dated 05.12.2003, is set aside, and the said suit is dismissed. The appellant/first defendant shall be entitled to the costs through out”.............................. Recognition as an Expert
  1. Hon’ble Judge, J.S.C.C. Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 305/78 decided on 03/10/80 observes: “Ashok Kashayp, Expert stated that the fingerprint and signature belong to the defendant and proved his report. There is nothing to disbelieve his report. Defendants have not filed any report in rebuttal. Plaintiff’s expert Ashok Kashyap’s report thus stands unchallenged.”
  2. Hon’ble 5th Addl. Munsif, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. 421/78 decided on 30/10/79 observes: “The report of D.W.-1 (Sh. B.N.S) is misleading. The opinion of P.W.-1 Ashok Kashyap deserves greater credibility.”
  3. Sh. K.D. Sahi, Munsif, Khalilabad at Basti (U.P.) (subsequently Hon’ble Justice Allahabad High Court) in O.S. No. 83/65 observes: “Mr Kashyap has gone a step further to Mr. Gregory Expert, Lucknow in establishing the identity of the prints.”
  4. Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (U.P.) in O.S. No. 12/77 decided on 10/08/81 observes: “There is nothing in the evidence of expert Ashok Kashyap that may discredit his opinion.”
  5. Hon’ble 3rd Addl. Dist. Judge, Etah (U.P.) as Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 128/80 decided on 26/03/83 observes : “The learned lower court (VI Addl. Munsif, Etah) discussed the expert evidence. In my opinion, the learned court did not rightly approve of the opinion of C.K. J., Expert, Lucknow (P.W.2). It accepted the opinion and evidence of Ashok Kashyap (D.W.1) and rejected the evidence of PW-2 (Expert on behalf of the Appellant). I myself saw and compared the signatures to arrive at the same conclusion at which Ashok Kashyap arrived.”
  6. Hon’ble 2nd Addl. District Judge, Moradabad (U.P.) in Rent Control Appeal No. 12/85 decided on 28/09/88 observes: “This is an appeal by the Tenant-Appellant. A compromise was filed in this appeal (by him). The respondents filed objections alleging the compromise to be forged. Both the Experts have filed their reports. The perusal of their reports shows that Ashok Kashyap is more qualified and experienced (than Expert produced by the Appellant). In the circumstances, the report of Ashok Kashyap carries more weight.”
(V) Brief List of Cases in which Our Bureau’s Experts Believed by Hon’ble Courts in Preference to Govt. & Private Experts allover India Since 1936
 
  1. Shri Bawa Niranjan Singh B.A., P.C.S., Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Gurgaon Civil Suit No. 1407 of 1934 Sita Ram Son of Bensidhar Mahajan Through Mutsasddi Lal Mukhtar-I-AM Fariljmagar Dost. Gurgaon, Defendants (Decided on 30/01/1936) ....... Says “Now as to the expert evidence it is true that defendants have produced the governments expert and the expert produced by the plaintiff is comparatively younger in this procession. But the evidence of the former cannot be accepted simply because he happens to be the government experts, And that of the latter cannot be rejected, because he is a private expert........... the Govt. Expert, with all his experience did not find anything suspicious about the signature or stamp on the contested receipt ex. D-6..... I have therefore no hesitation to agree with plaintiff’s expert (Ugrasen Kashyap, Kashmere Gate, Delhi) and hold that the receipt Ex. D-6, is not genuine consequently I decide this issue against the defendants.... Government Expert disbelieved
    Delhi
 
DELHI
  1. Shri S. Balasubramanian (Chairman), Hon’ble Judge the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in case Mrs. Uma Pathak & Shri Rajat Pathak Vs. Eurasain Choice International Pvt. Ltd. In (CP No. 19 of 2002, Decided On: 15/04/2004 says, “Both the sides desired to get the signatures verified by two deferent experts one suggested by the petitioners & the other suggested by the respondents. Accordingly, 1 appointed “Pt. Ashok Kashyap” & Shri B. Lal (Ex. G.E.Q.D. Simla) suggested by the petitioners & the latter by the respondents to give Their opinion on the genuine of the signatures of the deceased....... The Handwriting Experts have submitted their reports. While Pt. Ashok Kashyap has categorically opined that the signatures in the minutes are forged, Shri Lal has opined that it is not possible to give any definite opinion. When the reports were made available to the parties, the respondents filed an application challenging the findings of Pt. Ashok Kashyap on various grounds....... since I have a definite opinion by one experts (Ashok Kashyap) that the signatures on the minutes were forged & by another (Shri B. Lal Ex. G.E.Q.D. Simla) an indefinite opinion, I have made my own comparison...... in other words, signatures of the  deceased on the minutes may not be genuine (As opined by Ashok Kashyap)........ Ex. Govt. Expert Disbelieved   .... (2004) 122 company cas 922(CLB)
Andhra Pradesh
  1. Shri M.J. Vijayavardhan Rao, Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in case Pandu & Yadgiri Vs. (R.A. No. 340 of 1987) says, “When it was pointed out on behalf of the applicants that the handwriting expert PW-2 (Shri Prakash Rao) had no adequate experience, the disputed signature of the landlord on Ex.R-2 was referred to another handwriting expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap of Delhi by my predecessor in office........ The said expert, who is examined as PW-3 before this court expressed the opinion that the disputed signature on Ex.R.-2 is forged & not written by the writer of standard signatures of S-series (Shyamdas)..... on a comparison of the signatures, I am satisfied that the disputed signature is not that of Shyamdas PW-1 & I am inclined to accept the opinions given by PW-2 (Prakesh Rao) & PW-3 (Ashok Kashyap) that the disputed signature is a forged one”.
  2. Kum. Y. Sujanakumari, Hon’ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ongole (A.P.) & subsequently Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in O.S. No. 435/96 (D.D. 10/12/02) aays, “... During pendency of the suit, Ex. B-1 was sent to the Govt. Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad for comparison of the thumb impressions on Ex.B-1 at the instance of the defendants. The Expert (M.N. Karunanidi) P.W.-3 sent a report, Marked as EX. A-5 stating that for want of clear ridge characteristics, the defendants got Ex. B-1 sent for comparison of the Expert (M.N.K.) who gave evidence as P.W.-3 in support of his opinion. The defendants got Ex. B-1 sent for comparison of the Thumb Impression to a private expert by name Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Delhi who gave opinion stating that the Thumb Impression on Ex. B-1 and the deposition of P.W.-1 are identical. He gave evidence as DW-6 in the Court. He gave six of DW-6 (Ashok Kashyap) can be considered in support of execution of Ex. B-1 by the plaintiff. ..... Government Expert Disbelieved
KERALA
 
  1. Shri P. S. Antony, Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trissur (Kerala), in the case titled M/s Sakthan Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., Pallikulam Road, Thrissur Vs. Dr. P. V. Sajeesh, P.O. Arimboor, Thrissur in C.C. No. 44/2000 (DD 12/01/2012) says, “At the instance of the accused, the cheque was sent to DW-1 Hand Writing Expert. Though, DW-1 (Sukumaran Chettiar, Ex. Govt. Expert, State Forensic Lab, Thiruvanthapuram) gave the opinion in Ext.D-5 report that the accused is the author of the signature. the said opinion is challenged by the accused by filing Crl. M.P. No. 685/09 to send Ext. P-3 cheque along with the standard signatures and admitted signatures for a second expert opinion with a direction to send a report with the photographic enlargements of signatures. The accused had also filed Crl. M.C. No. 724/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of with following directions.... It has come out from the examination of DW-1 expert that the report is not supported by any photographic enlargement of the disputed signature. ...here the expert has not taken the photographic enlargement of the disputed signatures so as to demonstrate before the court and infrom the court his reasons for coming into an opinion of the signature. ...Having considered the contentions of both parties and in the light of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, this court had allowed the petition for the second opinion of another expert. Accordingly, Ext.P-3 was sent for examination of DW-3 (Ashok Kashyap, expert, Delhi), who filed Ext. D-10 series report to the effect that the accused is not the author of the disputed signature in Ext.P-3. ...The court can only come to the conclusion that the complainant has not succeeded to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” ...Therefore, I find that the accused is not liable to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are found against the prosecution. ...In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence charged against him under Section 420 of the IPC. He is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr. P.C. Bail bond is cancelled and he is set at liberty. ...............................................................................................           (The methodology adopted by the Ex. Govt. Expert State Forensic Lab, Thiruvanthapuram in his report not basing his opinion on comparison of photo-enlargements was found not Judicially convincing and lead to the acquittal of the accused in a case under section 138).
 
KARNATAKA
  1. Shri A.T. Munnoli, Hon’ble Prl. Munsiff, Hubli (Karnataka) in O.S. No. 378/89 (D.D. 29//1/89) says, “One Handwriting Expert P.W.-4 (Shri A.L. Lingayya), an Expert of Govt. Of Karnataka at Banogalore has given his opinion, another expert DW-3 (Ashok Kashyap), Delhi has given his opinion with detailed reasons. The report of PW-4 is not trustworthy. It is pointed out that PW-4 (A.L.L.) is not qualified, whereas Ashok Kashyap is duly qualified with the specific science of Handwriting and has vast experience. It has been proved by the defendant that the suit pronote is got up one. The suit is dismissed”.     Karnataka Government Expert disbe
HARYANA
 
  1. Hon’ble Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Panipat (Haryana) in execution case No. 30/74 (D.D. 29/1/75) Says,
    “.... The J.DS have examined Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert on the other hand the D.H. has examined (Sh. R.P. Singh) Handwriting Expert as D.H.W.-1, who has expressed contrary views. I am of the opinion that the report of (R.P. Singh) is quite vague and abstract without any objective effort to make his report convincing. I am not inclined to attach any weight to his report. On the contrary, the report of Ashok Kashyap is not only scientific and logical but also based on sound reasoning, the reasons adduced by him appear to be sound and acceptable. The execution of receipt Ex.-09 has been proved to be genuine (as opined by Ashok Kashyap).


    7 (a).   Hon’ble District Judge, Karnal (Haryana) in Civil Appeal No. 187/13 of 1978 (D.D. 04/05/78) Says, “... This appeal is directed against the order of 15/09/75 passed by Shri K.C. Dang, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, the D.H. controverted the pleas of the J.D. regarding the creation of the fresh tenancy (alleging that the receipt Ex.-09 was false and fabricated). The appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs”. Appellate Court Finding.
 
Utar Pradesh
  1. Shri Vijay Singh Hon’ble 2nd Addl. Dist. Munsiff, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 84/71 in case Chanderpal Vs. Govt. Of U.P. and others (Decided on 19/08/76) Says, “... The plaintiff denied his signatures and in his support produced the report of Ashok Kashyap PW-1 and in his opinion, the disputed signatures were not written by the author of the specimen and admitted signatures. After a long cross examination of the plaintiff’s expert (Ashok Kashyap) ....... there is no basis to reject his opinion”............................................. Translated from Devanagri to English
  2. Shri Janardan Prasad Pandey Hon’ble Vth Addl. Munsiff, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 421/78 decided on 30/10/79 says, “From the side of plaintiffs Shri B.N.S. (PW-1) produced his report 22 GA and stated that the disputed signature was forged. From the side of the defendants, Ashok Kashyap PW-1 submitted his report 31-GA and stated that the disputed signatures was genuine. Thus, the opinion of both the experts in deferent. On the basis of the opinions, it is necessary to analyse them...... Thus, the opinion of DW-1 (B.N.S.) is doubtful and the opinion of PW-1 is worth acceptable”............................................... (Translated from Hindi to English)
  3. J.S.P. Singh Hon’ble Munsiff Kole, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 447/76 (DD 03/08/79) Says, “PW-2 Ashok Kashyap said that the disputed signatures on the diary agree with the specimen signatures and that it is genuine......... on the other hand, the defendant in order to substantiate his version produced DW-2 (B.N.S.) Handwriting Expert, who stated in his report 31 GA that the disputed signatures did not belong to the defendant. This witness DW-2 cannot be believed. He stated that all the three disputed signatures were made forged from the same model. But, he did not mention this fact in his report”........................................ (Translated from Hindi to English)
  4. Sh. Om Rakesh Dixit Hon’ble VIIIth Addl. Munsiff. Etah (U.P.) in O.S. No. 361/79 (Decided on 24/11/81) Says, “From the side of plaintiffs, the evidence of (C.K. Johari, Expert Lucknow) .... has been produced from the side of the defendant....., the evidence of (Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert, Delhi) DW-6 has been examined.......... from the side of the plaintiffs...... (Shri C.K.J., Expert, Lucknow) has testified and from the side of the defendant......... Ashok Kashyap has testified......... the plaintiff has to prove the execution of the Will beyond a reasonable doubt.... from the analysis, I have arrived at the conclusion that the deceased Todi has not executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and the Will Ex.-6-A-1 is forged (as opined by Ashok Kashyap). (Translated from Hindi to English)
  5. Shri Ramprakesh Gupta, Hon’ble Vth Addl. Munsiff, Bulandshahar (U.P.) in O.S. No. 174/77 (Decided on 01/10/80) Says, “In addition to this, the plaintiff produced the report, photo enlargements and negatives of Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert. I have critically analysed the opinion of DW-1 (V.S. Chaudhary expert Meerut) and no importance can be given to his opinion”.
  6. Shri B.K. Rathi, Hon’ble IIIrd Add. Dist. Judge, Moradabad (U.P.)  in Rent control appeal No. 12/85 (DD 28/09/88) Says, “The Affidavit of Shri P.K.G., Handwriting Expert was filed. The Affidavit of Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert has also been filed and who has expressed opinion that the signatures on Exibit 16-A are not of respondents 2 and 3... “I have duly perused. the report shows that Ashok Kashyap is more qualified and experienced and has also given more reasons for his opinion than the expert Shri P.K.G examined by the appellant. In the circumstances, the report of Ashok Kashyap caries more weight. I have myself seen the signatures on the compromise 16/A. in my opinion, they are not of respondents 2 and 3. (As opined by Ashok Kashyap)
JHARKHAND
  1. Hon’ble Ist Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Deltonganj (Jharkhand) in M.A. 3/1984 (D.D. 30/04/88) Says, “... PW-3 Expert ....held his opinion in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also got another Handwriting Expert examined as DW-3 (Ashok Kashyap of Delhi) and he gave just a contrary opinion. I find that the two experts were examined in the Court below (Munsiff, Garhwa) and they had given different opinions. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff after accepting the evidence of the plaintiff. I have myself looked to the disputed signatures from the perusal of these handwritings by naked eye, it will appear that the writer of the specimen signatures was not the man who signed the disputed receipt (as opined by expert Ashok Kashpay). The judgement and decree passed by the Learned Court below (Munsiff, Garhwa) is hereby set aside”.            (As First Appellate Court)
BIHAR
  1. Hon’ble Ist Munsif, as Trial Court, Samastipur (Bihar) in eviction case No. 24/86 (D.D. 27/03/91) says, “On the payment of the defendants... The expert Ashok Kashyap of Delhi, DW-22. The plaintiff got the report from another expert (Shri S.K.C.) the report of the two experts are quite contradictory. Ashok Kashyap was subjected to long cross examination but nothing was elicited so as to create any reasonable doubt with regard to his testimony. It can be legitimately inferred that the evidence of Ashok Kashyap is superior to that of the evidence of PW-18.” I am of the view that the disputed agreement Ex-2 is forged and fabricated ............................................................. (As opined by Ashok Kashyap).
(VI) Extract from Foreign Court Judgment
 
  1. Allen & Gledhill Advocates & Solicitors Notaries Public & Commissioners for Oaths, 36 Robinson Road, #18-01 City House Singapore-068877, (Vide Letter Dated 10/09/1997 in Suit No. 250 of 1995 titled Sarabiai Ahmad Ibraim Affiff Vs. Ayasha) say, “This is to confirm that the court (Hon’ble High Court Singapore), had accepted your expert opinion and evidence that the documents in question have not been forged as alleged by the plaintiff, but were actually written by the plaintiff in her own handwriting”................................................... (Foreign Recognition)

    Note: Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert appeared before Hon’ble High Court at Singapore to give his evidence on 28/04/1997. Hon’ble High Court graciously accepted his evidence.
 
(VI) Appreciations from Bench & the Bar including Foreign Clients
  1. Mr. Denial LatiffI, Bar at Law, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court vide letter dated 08/03/82 says, “I have carefully studied the report you have prepared regarding the signatures... I think you have brought out the significant features of the signatures under Scrutiny both by the enlargements and by the lucid reasoning. I have no doubt that it will be of considerable assistance to the court (Hon’ble Supreme Court) when in due course, the matter comes before their lordships”............................ (Senior Supreme Court Advocate Reference)
  1. Hon’ble Munsiff, Kondangallur (Kerala) in O.S. No. 182/92 (D.D. 16/06/93) says, “Ex.X-1 (report) is issued by the handwriting expert, Mr. Ashok Kashyap of International reputation ...there are number of judgments of the High Courts in India and the Supreme Court of India where the opinion of this handwriting expert is acclaimed and acted upon. Therefore, the judgements of various high Courts and Supreme Court bear an ample testimony to the knowledge of this expert. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex.A-3 is not executed by one defendant (as opined by Ashok Kashyap, Expert, Delhi)...”  .................................................. (Historic Court Appreciation)     
  1. Sr. S.N. Bhargava, Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in his letter dated 14/02/95 says, “Thanks for sending the Bulletin “Disputed Document Problems and Miscellaneous references”, which I found to be very informative, useful as well as instructive”................................................. (Appreciation by Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim)
  2. Dr. S.R. Korada, Senior Scientific Officer, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (Govt. of India) Technology Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter dated 18/04/06says, “…..I sincerely thank you and your office for coming to my rescue when I was facing a turbulent phase of my life…..As you are aware that the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Shimla, concluded (through his report submitted to the Department that I am the author for a forgery…..and my department accordingly charge-sheeted me as well as placed me under immediate suspension pending departmental inquiry…..I was lucky in finding you and your office to counter the GEQD, Shimla’s report, by pin-pointing scientific & technical lacunae associated with the report. Further, I am extremely happy that you withstood  the cross-examination of the opposite party. You were highly confident in the inquiry proceedings and did not yield to any pressure tactics of the opposition…..Your report, analysis, testimony and above all your presence itself was a hall mark in the inquiry proceedings, which ultimately helped me in getting exoneration in the departmental inquiry. I sincerely pray the God that he should grace you good health and conditions so that you can render your help to needy people like me….. I shall remain grateful and indebted to you and remember you forever…”  Glorious  Compliment... .......................... G.E.Q.D., Simla opinion disbelieved
  3. Shri P.V.K. Ramana Prasad, Special Chief Legal Adviser, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, A.P. vide letter Dated 31-12-2010 says, “...The contribution of Pandit Ashok Kashyap, Examiner of Questioned Documents (Delhi) under Forensic Science included in the book (Co-authered by him) also make the book quite useful to all Lawyers, Prosecutors, Judges and others dealing with the subject”.
  4. Shri S. Ranghunath, Chief Officer, (Vigilance), Central Office, Andhra Bank, Hyderabad vide letter dated 25/01/85 says, “… I understand that you are one of the leading consultants for handwritings and fingerprints (in India). I have also learnt that your services are utilized by many of the Govt. of India Undertakings besides Govt. Departments. As there are some cases for consultation in handwriting, I would like to know from you the time you will take for giving your opinion on questioned writings”.
  5. Mr. V.N. Sehgal, Ex. Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CBI, New Delhi says, “... I have known Sh. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for several years. he belongs to an illustrious family of handwriting experts and commands an all India practice. I strongly recommend him for impartial and competent professional services”.
  1. Jeff Moy ESQ, Private Investigator, Alachua, Florida-32615 (USA) vide e-mail dated 29/06/2012 says, “...I have had the pleasure of reviewing your credentials (on website) and they are sterling as compared to others I have seen in India”.................................. Glorious Complement

    Note: Documents were transmitted for examination and opinion to Kashyap Handwriting Expert and the above enconium acted as a pre-cursor to actual submission of the opinion on questioned document.
 
(VI) Invitations & Engagements by Foreign Solicitors & Clients
  1. Idris & Company Advocates, Jalan Gold Jade, 93150 Kuching, Sarwak (Malaysia) vide letter dated 25/01/2008 say, “We are instructed by our client to invite you to conduct an examination of a purported signature on a Bank Gurantee Allegedly signed by our client… we understand from our client that you are a handwriting & fingerprint expert (examiner of questioned Documents). Accordingly, our client would be grateful, if you could conduct an examination of the alleged gurantee & various specimen signatures of our client at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia at your earliest convenience”........................................................................... Malayasia
  2. Sh. Utpal Kumar Das, Managing Director, Powermann Bangladesh Limited vide letter dated 14the June, 2007 says, “Now we are requesting you to verify the signatures of page 6/12 with other 10 pages”.................................................................................... Bangladesh
  3. Mr. Terrence Wickramasinghe, Legal Consultant United Nations, Hillhouse Gardens, ….Sri Lanka vide letter dated 16/02/2009 says, “Kindly let us know when you can come to Sri Lanka so that we can make the necessary arrangements with the Courts and with other Lawyers concerned to make available the impugned signature in question” (For your inspection & Photographs)”.................................................... Sri Lanka
  4. Sh. B.K. Chaudhary, Managing Director Norvice Escort International Hospital, Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal vide his letter dated 30/01/2008 says, “Thank you every much for your preliminary report. I must say, you have done good job”.................................................. Nepal
 
PLEASE SEND YOUR SCANNED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS BY POST OR E-MAIL FOR INSTANT OPINION
 
Back to Top
cross examination
 
 
  Valid XHTML 1.0!
court cases examination
handwriting and fingerprint expert in india