fingerprint
fingerprints
fingerprint experts fingerprint expert
fingerprint identification
fingerprint reader
handwriting fingerprint experts
fingerprint recognition
fingerprint evidence
GLOSSARY / SITEMAP
 
COURT JUDGMENTS
     
 
fingerprint expert
fingerprint expert
fingerprint expert
fingerprint forensic
 
     
REFERENCES
     
 
fingerprint expert COURTS REFERENCES
 
fingerprint expert NATIONALISED BANKS
 
fingerprint expert FOREIGN BANKS
 
fingerprint expert GOVT. UNDERTAKINGS
 
fingerprint expert UNIVERSITIES
 
fingerprint expert ELECTRICITY COs
 
fingerprint expert MNCs & OTHER COs
 
fingerprint expert POLICE, MILITARY & NAVY
 
fingerprint expert FOREIGN INVESTIGATORS
 
fingerprint expert FOREIGN CLIENTS
 
fingerprint expert INK EXAMINATION
fingerprint expert LATENT FINGERPRINTS
fingerprint expert CASES RECEIVED (INDIA)
fingerprint expert PRIVATE CLIENTS
 
fingerprint expert APPRECIATIONS
fingerprint expert PRESS RELEASES
fingerprint expert COURT RULINGS
fingerprint expert SUBMIT CASE
 
     
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 EVIDENCE ON COMMISSIONS.
C.   ALL INDIA COURT JUDGMENTS INCLUDING SUBORDINATE       COURTS, HON‘BLE HIGH COURTS, HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT &       FOREIGN HIGH COURT (S).

 
(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 PRADESH & TELANGANA
Addanki, Adilabad, Adoni, Allagada, Amalapuram, Anantapur, Ankapalli, Armoor, Asifabad, Atmakur (Distts. Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar & Nallore), Avanigadda, Badvel, Bhimavaram, Bobilli, Bodhan, Bichkonda, Bhongir, Bapatla, Bheemuipatnam, Chennur, Cheepurpulli, Chintalapudi, Chittoor, Chirala, Cuddapah, Chilkalurpet, Chodvaram, Darsi, Dhamavaram, Devarkonda, Dhone, Eluru, Gadwal, Gajapathinagram, Gajuwaka, Gajwel, Gannavaram, Giddalur, Gooty, Gudiwada, Gudur, Guntur, Gurzala, Guntakal, Hindupur, Huzurabad, Hyderabad, Ichapuram, Jagtial, Jaggayyapeta, Jammalamadugu, Jangaon, Kadiri, Kakinada, Kakkalur, Kamalapuram, Kandukur, Kanigiri, Karimnagar, Kavali, Khammam, Kodangal, Koilkuntla, Kollapur, Kotabommali, Kothagudam, Kothapeta, Kovur, Kovvur, Kurnool, Lakkireddipalli, Luxettipet, Macharla, Machillipatanam, Madanapalle, Madhira, Mahaboobnagar, Mancharial, Medak, Medchal, Metapalli, Markapur, Mahabubabad, Miryalaguda, Nandikotkur, Nagari, Nagarkurnool, Nakrekal, Narayankhed, Nandalur, Nandyal, Narayanpet, Narsipatnam, Narsannapet, Nellore, 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, Sattanapalli, Sangareddy, Secunderabad, Siddipet, Sirpur, Sompeta, Sattupalli, Sircilla, Srikalahasti, Sullurpet, Suryapet, Tadpatri, Tekkali, Tenali, Thabalapalle, Tuni, Tiruvuru, Tanuku, Tirupati, Tandur, Thambhapalle, Tadepalligudam, Thiruvuru, Urvakonda, Vyalpadyu, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Vizianagaram, Vikarabad, Venkatagiri, Warangal, Wanaparthy, Yammiganur, Yellandu & Yellamanchili ...............170 Towns
Note: Expert Ashok Kashyap has appeared and attended personally Hon'ble Courts in A.P. in scores of cases at more than 64 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 100-120 different places in Andhra Pradesh during last 40 years.
 
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Tinsukia............................................................................................... 01 Town
 
ASSAM
Guwahati, Karimganj, Tezpur............................................................... 02 Towns
 
BIHAR
Hazipur, Katihar, Lakhisarai, Patna, Pakur, Samastipur ..........................06 Towns
 
CHHATTISGARH
Rayagarh.......................................................................................... 01 Town
 
DELHI
Delhi, New Delhi, Hon‘ble High Court, Hon‘ble Supreme Court & various Subordinate Courts
 
HARYANA
Ambala, Bahadurgarh, Bhiwani, Chandigarh, Dadri, Faridabad, Fatehabad, Gohana, Gurgaon, Hansi, Hissar, Jhajjar, Jind, Karnal, Mahindergarh, Narnaul, Palwal, Panipat, Rewari, Rohtak, Sirsa, Sonepat, Yamuna Nagar ……………………….23 Towns
 
HIMACHAL PRADESH
Dharamshala, Hamirpur, Kalpa............................................................... 03 Town
 
GUJRAT
Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar, Gandhidham, Himmatnagar, Junagarh, Surat, Vadodara ………………………………….……………….................07 Towns
 
JAMMU & KASHMIR
Anantnag, Jammu, Shopian, Sonawari, Srinagar ...................................05 Towns
 
JHARKHAND
Bokaro, Dhanbad, Garhwa, Jamshedpur, Pakur ....................................05 Towns
 
KERALA
Alappuzha, Cochin, Chettur, Challukudi, Ernakulam, Kalpetta, Kasragod, Kodungalur, Kottayam, Kozhikode, Kollam, Kuthupuramba, Manjeri, Mallapuram, Palakkad, Pathanamthitta, Pattambi, Thalassery, Thrissur, Thodupuzha, Thiruvalla, Thiruvananthapuram.............................................................................22 Towns
 
KARNATAKA
Bangaluru, Bhatkal, Chickmuglur, Gulbarga, Hadagalli, Hubli, Humnabad, Mysore, Nipani, Pandavpura, Shimoga, Tiptur.....................................................12 Towns
 
MADHYA PRADESH
Gwalior, Harda, Indore, Jabalpur, Kukshi, Raipur ....................................06 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, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Rajgarh, Sikar Udaipur .............…09 Towns
 
WEST BENGAL
Asansol, Coochbihar, Kolkata, Midnapore .................................... 04 Towns
 
TAMILNADU
Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Pondicherry, Purundurai, Ramanathapuram, Salem, Vellore ................................................................................................08 Towns
 
MAHARARASHTRA
Ahmednagar, Aurangabad, Kolhapur, Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, Wardha.....07 Towns
 
GOA
Panaji.................................................................................................. 01 Town
 
UTTAR PRADESH
Agra, Aligarh, Amroha, Anupshahar, Badaun, Badhalganj, Bansagaon, Bansi, Basti, Bareilly, Bijnour, Bulandshahar, Chandausi, Deoband, Deoria, Etah, Eatwah, Faizabad, Farrukhabad, Firozabad, Ghaziabad, Gonda, Gorakhpur, Hapur, Hardoi, Hathras, Kannauj, Kanpur, Kasganj, Kashipur, Kasia, Khurja, Kirana, Lucknow, Mainpuri, Mathura, Mawana, Meerut, Mirzapur, Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Nagina, Noida, Piliphit, Rampur, Roorkee, Sambhal, Saharanpur, Sardhana, Shikohabad, Sikandrabad ...............................49 Towns
 
UTTRAKHAND
Almora, Dehradun, Haridwar, Lansdown, Nainital, Pauri-Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Ranikhet, Rishikesh, Roorhkee, Tehri-Garhwal, Uttarkashi ……….............11 Towns
 
(II) SELECTED ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FOR OPINION, CROSS-EXAMINATION & AFFIDAVITS
 
ANDHRA PRADESH (OPINIONS)
  1. 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." ……………….. ................................................................………………Examination of Ink

  2. Shri C. Jacob, Hon‘ble Sub Judge, Vizianagaram (A.P.) vide Letter dated 18.06.87 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 Ink

  3. 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)."
  1. Shri N. Venkatesham, Hon‘ble Sub Judge, Siddipet (Medak) vide Letter dated 06.04.92 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 ......"

    4a) Shri V. Rajareddy, Advocate/Commissioner, Siddipet (Medak) vide Letter dated. 27.03.93 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 1993 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 Ink

  2. 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….."

  3. Sri V. Balram Hon‘ble II 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."

  4. 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…."

  5. 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."
  1. Shri J. Shyamasundra Rao, Hon‘ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Warangal (A.P.) 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."

    10a) 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. Sh. N Venkatesham, Hon‘ble IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (A.P.) 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....."

  2. Sh. M. Bhaskar, Hon‘ble II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) 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."

  3. Sri G. Krishnamohan Reddy, Hon‘ble District Judge, Rajamundry, E.G. Dist. (A.P.) in O.S. No. 66/04 in I.A. no. 2506/08 vide Letter dated 30.09.2008, says "…….I am sending herewith the documents……. and send report to this Court on or before 15.10.2008…….."

  4. Sh. P. Sridhara Rao, Hon‘ble Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Eluru (A.P.) (subsequently Hon‘ble VIth Addl. Distt. Judge, Tirupati, A.P. and President Distt. Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar) vide Letter dated 28.02.2005 in OS. No. 42/2001 says, "I am sending herewith the following documents ……. For comparison and your opinion."

  5. 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."

  6. Sri B. Girja Manohar, Hon‘ble Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Tirupati (A.P.) in O.S. No. 198/2000 vide Letter dated 25/06/2002 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….."
  7. Sri Ganesh Jadhav, Hon‘ble Prl. District Judge, Nellore (A.P.) in I.A. No. 37/2009 in A.S. No. 11/2006 vide Letter dated 24.04.2009, says "…… You are therefore requested to give your opinion with regard to the genuineness of the signature contained in Ex. A-1 on comparison with the signature contained in Ex. A-10, at an early date……"
  8. Sri N. Basavaiah, Hon‘ble Prl. Dist. Judge, Kurnool (A.P.) in O.S. No. 47/2009 vide Letter dated 05.11.2012, says "…..Therefore, I request you to inform your fee for examination of the said documents and to give opinion on the said documents, so as to enable to this court to send the same……"
  9. Sri M. Santha Raju, Hon‘ble Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda (A.P.) in O.S. No. 37/2013 in I.A. No. 96/2013 vide Letter dated 10.03.2014, says "……The Expert Fee will be sent to you after receipt of the report along with your letter claiming the expert fee……"
  10. Sh. G.V. Krishnama Raju, Hon‘ble Ist Addl. Sr. Civil Court, Kakinada (IIIrd ADJ, RR Distt. Court, Hyderabad) in OS No. 250/2007 vide Letter dated 19.6.2008 says, "……I transmit demand to promote on the file of this court for comparison and opinion."
  11. Shri P. Ramnarayan Rao, Hon‘ble II Spl. Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Letter dated 28/10/2014 in Crl. M.P. 1049/2014 in C.C. No. 211/2013 says, "…….. The receipt of the records to be acknowledged."
  1. Shri C. Vijaya Mohan, Hon‘ble Munsif Magistrate, Sattupalli, Khammam (A.P.) vide letter dated 06.08.97 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. 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….."
  1. Shri P. David, Hon‘ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram (A.P.) 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".

    24a) Shri N. Raghuram, Advocate/Commissioner, Parvathipuram vide Letter dated 01.08.99 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 (at Delhi) in connection with your expert opinion in the above matter"
 
  1. Hon‘ble 2nd Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Civil Court, Chittoor (A.P.) vide Letter dated 25/09/2010 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."

  2. Smt. K. Aruna Kumari, Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Nalgonda (A.P.) vide Letter dated 30.1.2014 in C.F. No. 511/2012 (for the offence under secs. 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC says, "………. Therefore, the Handwriting Expert (Ashok Kashyap) is required to examine the documents 1 to 3 (three signatures on the right side of the Simple Sale Deed dated 23.04.1995) with the specimen signatures of Complainant Rapolu Kamalamma and her two sons Rapolu yadagiri and Rapolu Lokesh obtained in the open court and submit your report as early as possible."

  3. Smt. S. Thangamani, Hon‘ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Kadiri (A.P.) vide his Letter dated 04.03.2014 in O.S. No. 362/12 says, "……I am herewith transmitting the acknowledgement of debt ……. disputed signature and signatures of …….. on the file of this court ……… admitted signatures for comparison, opinion and report…… The receipt of the same should be acknowledged."
  4.            
  5. Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy, Hon‘ble I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad vide Letter dated 07/02/2015 in O.S. No. 66/05, says "……..(Ref.- Order of this Court, dt. 25/11/2014 in I.A. No. 5261/2014 in O.S. no. 66/05)………. Please send your opinion and detailed report in the above manner as early as possible………"
  6. Sri J. Sambashiv, Hon‘ble VII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil. Hyderabad vide Letter dated 20/02/2015 in Cr. M.P. No. 186/15 in C.C. No. 182/14, says " (Ref.:- As per Order dated 29/01/2015 made in Crl. M.P. No. 186/15 in C.C. No. 182/14 on the file of this Court)….. Therefore, you are requested to kindly send your opinion within 15 days so as to enable this Court to proceed further."
 
COURT ORDER - 1
 
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT MIRYALAGUDA
(Dated This the 20th Day of January, 2015)
 
Present: Sri M. Santha Raju, B.Sc., LL.M.,
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Miryalaguda
Crl. R. P. No. 71 of 2014

Between :

Y. Sathyanarayana Reddy …...................................................…Revision Petitioner
And
T. Jayasri …....................................................................................….Respondent

 
CRIMINAL REVISION FILED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED ON 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AT MIRYALAGUDA
In
Crl. M. P. No. 480 of 2014
In
C. C. No. 447 of 2013 (OLD)
C.C. No. 301 of 2014 (NEW)

Between:

Y. Sathyanarayana Reddy ……...................................................Petitioner/Accused
AND
T. Jayasri …................................................................….Respondent/Complainant

 
This revision petition coming on before me in the presence of Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, counsel for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri Gouru Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for respondent and having stood over for consideration, passed the following order:
 
:: ORDER ::
  1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order in Crl. M. P. No. 480/2014 in C. C. No. 447/2013 dated 05-09-2014 on the file of Special Magistrate, Miryalaguda where under and whereby the trial court allowed the petition filed by the revision petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque marked as Ex. P-1 and alleged writings of the complainant marked as Exs. D-1 to D-17 to send the same to Handwriting Expert Ashok Kashyap for comparison and report.
  2. The respondent filed a counter opposing the petition that the expert named by the petitioner as Ashok Kashyap is a private expert, but there is a State Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad instead of, requesting the court to send the document to State Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, the petitioner requested the court to send the document to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi only to drag on the matter and no merits in the petition and dismiss the petition.
  3. Aggrieved by the said impugned order to send the document and the disputed and admitted document to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison and report instead of sending document to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi, preferred this revision.
  4. Now the point for determination is :

    Whether the order passed by the trial court to send the document to State Forensic Science Laboratory instead of sending the same to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi as prayed by the petitioner has sustainable in the eye of law?
  5. The first question that arise for consideration whether the order of the trial court to send the document to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad instead of sending the same to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi as requested by the petitioner in his petition is sustainable.
  6. …. the trial court must give or assign some reasons to reject the request of the petitioner and accepted the request of the respondent/complainant to send the document to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad…… There is no clarification in the order why the trial court rejected the request of the petitioner to send the documents to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi whether the trial court came to the conclusion it will take more time get back the documents and report or whether the trial court not having any confidence on report issued by Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi. When the petitioner prepared to bear the expenses whatever may be the quantum of amount going to be charged by Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi in the absence of any adverse opinion expressed by the respondent/complainant in the counter, the trial court has no ground to reject the relief sought by the petitioner to send the documents to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi. No doubt Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi is renowned expert in documents examination having sufficient experience and his reports also appreciated by several courts in India including the various High Courts and Supreme Court and there is no reason to suspect his report.
  7. No doubt State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad is a government organization and there is no bar to send documents to the same for examination and report. When the petitioner requested for one relief to send the document to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi and the respondent requested to send the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad deciding the issue to send the document to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad as organization, the trial court must give some reasons why the court not inclined to send the documents to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi. Without any reasons the order passed by the trial court to send the document to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad instead of Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi has no basis.
  8. The learned counsel for the respondent not disputed the experience and authority of Ashok Kashyap at New Delhi and not suspected the mode of the examination of the document only highlighted the issue of expert fee that Ashok Kashyap may charge more expert fee than the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The question of payment of expert fee is the liability and responsibility of the petitioner who requested the court to send the document to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi in the absence of any adverse opinion exposed against Ashok Kashyap, there is no reason to reject the request of the petitioner to send the document to Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi. So, in view of the relief sought by the petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the trial court is not at all sustainable and also fixing the responsibility on the petitioner to get the report within 20 days and getting of report is not in the hands of the petitioner.
  9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the trial court, dated 05/09/2014 in Crl. M.P. No. 480/2014 in C.C. No. 447/2013 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is permitted to send the documents Ex. P-1 and Exs. D-1 to D-17 to a writing expert Ashok Kashyap, New Delhi……….”

Sd/-
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Miryalaguda

Hon‘ble Special Magistrate, Miryalaguda in C.C. No. 447/2013 vide Letter dated 27/02/2015 in case Sathyanarayana Vs. T. Jayasri says, "………In this case Y. Sathyanarayana reddy (accused) filed Crl. R.P. 71/2014 against T. Jayasri (complainant) of C.C. 447/2013 (as per the order of Hon‘ble VIII ADJ, Miryalaguda in Crl. R.P. 71/2004 dated 20/01/2015). Hon‘ble VIII ADJ permitted the accused to send the documents Ex. P-1 & Exs. D-1 to D-17 to a writing expert Ashok Kashyap……… I am to state that in obedience to the orders of the Hon‘ble VIII ADJ this court obtained the handwriting and signatures of complainant as well as the accused in the open court….. submit your report as early as possible….."
 
COURT ORDER - 2
 
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Civil Revision Petition No. 2191 of 2012
 
::ORDER::
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff (“the plaintiff”, for short) is directed against the orders dated 11/04/2012 of the learned Hon’ble III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District made in I.A. No. 3247 of 2011 in O.S. No. 7 of 2008 filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short) allowing the request of the petitioners/defendants to accord permission to cross examine the proposed witness, a handwriting expert by another handwriting expert, Mr. Ashok Kashyap, in whose favour special power of attorney was executed.
 
The facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision petition, in brief, are as follows:
 
The plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 3096 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rule 4(1)(a)(c) of the Code for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of a handwriting expert, Mr. V. Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad …….. The defendants filed counter in the said application filed by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants had also filed an application in I.A. 3247 of 2011 for according permission to them to have the expert witness, who furnished the disputed opinion, to be cross examined by another duly empowered expert by name Mr. Ashok Kashyap contending inter alia that the services of the said expert are required for cross examining the expert who had furnished the opinion in the matter. The court below, on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, ordered both the petitions holding as under:-
 
I.A. No. 3096/11 is also ordered and Sri G.V.S. Vinayaka Rao, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of Sri V. Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad. The said Advocate Commissioner shall permit Mr. Ashok Kashyap, another expert to cross-examine the said witness on behalf of the defendants…….”
 
Since the plaintiff wants to examine Mr. V. Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, who examined Ex. A1 promissory note in proof of his report and since the defendants and their advocate are not experts in the particular subject and since the defendants have also executed Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mr. Ashok Kashyap who is another handwriting expert, the defendants can be permitted to cross-examine the proposed witness by Mr. Ashok Kashyap another expert. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.
 
In the result, I.A. No. 3247/2001 is allowed.”

…… This Court finally held that the Court has power to grant permission to non-lawyers to plead/argue cases in certain special circumstances……. ……

The trial Court had allowed the application filed by the defendants and accorded permission to them to have the said expert cross-examined by another expert by name Mr. Ashok Kashyap accepting the contention that the services of such a qualified and experienced expert are required to thoroughly cross-examine the expert, who furnished the opinion………
 
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, without costs and the impugned order insofar as allowing the petition in I.A. No. 3247 of 2011 is get aside. However, it is needless to mention that the Advocate for the defendants at the time of cross examining the expert witness is at liberty to take the assistance and instructions from an expet like Mr. Ashok Kashyap and can cross examine the expert witness with such aid and assistance, if necessary. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed.
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
23rd December 2013
 
ASSAM
  1. 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."
  2. Hon‘ble Munsif 1st, Karimganj (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."
BIHAR & JHARKHAND
  1. Sri P.K. Sinha, Hon‘ble Sub-Judge-II, 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."
  2. 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."
  3. 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."
  1. Shri Bhikhari Ram, Hon‘ble Registrar (Establishment), High Court of Judicature, Patna vide letter memo no. 4211 dated 07.08.95 addressed to Hon‘ble District & Sessions Judge, Palamu, Daltonganj (with a copy to Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert, Delhi) says, "……..I am directed to request you to take necessary steps for the payment of outstanding bill of Rs. …………….. (towards opinion fee) in case no. 425/91, Misc. Case No. 1263/91 on the file of Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhwa at the earliest."
  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 M.P. Mishra, Hon‘ble Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VII, Dhanbad vide Letter no. 3/14 dated 15.01.2014 in Title suit No. 38/2001, says "…… I am to inform you that you have been appointed as document examiner for giving your expert opinion in respect of disputd L.T.I. of Jagdish Mahato on impugned sale ded bearing no. 543 dated 16.01.1989…… duly taken in open court of Sub-Judge-IInd, Dhanbad (At present Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) II, Dhanbad) in presence of the parties and their lawyers…… Now, the case is pending before this court on transfer…… You are hereby requested to come and collect the questioned documents as well as admitted L.T.I. of Jagdish Mahato and submit your expert report at the earliest…… You are also requested to submit your bill for examination of the impugned documents and submit your expert report in respect of impugned L.T.I. of Jagdish Mahato in comparison to admitted L.T.I ……"
 
DELHI
  1. Shri M.C. Mehra, President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi in Case Bhalla & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Axis Bank, Case no. 724/2009 vide Letter dated 21.01.2014 says, "This Forum requires to verify the signature of the drawer affixed on the above mentioned cheque therefore, you are hereby instructed to carry out the signature verification in respect of the cheque bearing no. …….. as permissible under Evidence Act and submit your report to this forum by the next date i.e. 20.02.2014 at 10:30 AM ………."
  2. The President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi in Case Bhalla & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Case no. 724/2009 vide Court Order dated 10.01.2014 says, "………….The complainant Counsel has produced another cheque dated 18.01.2009 for a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- which also bears the disputed signature of the drawer for getting the same compared from a Handwriting/Signature Expert. Parties have also produced the list of the approved agency in this regard. The parties have got no objection, if the disputed documents are sent to the Kashyap‘s International Forgery Detection Bureau of the disputed signature with the admitted signature for comparison. ……. In such circumstances, both the documents i.e. cheque dated 18.01.2008 and the letter showing the admitted signature of the drawer, be sent to the above mentioned Signature Expert for comparison of the disputed signature on these document. The Expert fee shall be initially borne by the Complainant, however, it shall be levied on the defaulting party, later on. Now, both the documents alongwith the copy of this order be sent to the agency concerned for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature and to put up its report on or before 20.02.2014 ………"

    …………...…….Hon‘ble Court order for Referring documents for examination and Expert Opinion
 
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".
  2. Shri Kalpesh M. Bachkaniwala, Lal Darwaja, Surat vide Letter dated 06.02.2008 says, "…………I have also enclosed the scanned copies of the admitted signatures numbering upto 36 and one scanned copy ……. admitted signature. I am also enclosing the papers regarding the reasons and opinion of the Forensic Laboratory, Gandhinagar for your reference. They have not given us any enlarged photographs…………"
HARYANA
  1. Sh. Arunabh Chaudhary, Advocate, New Delhi vide his Letter dated 11.08.2012 in Civil Suit No. 294/2006 titled as Shruti Coudhry vs. Ranbir Singh Mahendra & Ors. pending before Smt. Sangeeta Rai Sachdev, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwani, Haryana says, "Please find enclosed herewith a Cheque……. dated 09.08.2012……….. drawn on HDFC Bank, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in your favour towards payment of your memo of fees dated 18.01.2012 and 02.03.2012."
  2. Sh. Naresh Kumar Singhal, Hon‘ble Addl. District Judge, Rohtak in case Pankaj Sharma Vs. Neetu vide Order dated 17/01/2015, says "….The evidence of Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting/Fingerprint Expert, opposite Ritz Cinema, 1/1422, Nikolson Road, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi-110006, be recorded after examining the documents by him, prepare his report and thereafter submit the same in the Court….."
    ………………….Court Order
 
HIMACHAL PARDESH
  1. Sh. Vinayak, Advocate, High Court, New Delhi vide Oral Communication dated 05/03/2015, says "…..An opinion was obtained from you on the comparison of the disputed signatures and your evidence was recorded at Noida Court. Another copy of the same report is needed to be filed before Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hamirpur (H.P.)."
 
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. Sh. A.L. Mahadevappa, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Chikmagalur (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."
  2. Shri A.L. Mahadevappa, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Chikmagalur (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."
  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."
  4. Chief Ministerial Officer, Hon‘ble II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Gulbarga in OS No. 126/2006 vide Commissioner Warrant dated 12.03.2012 says, "….. Whereas, it is deemed requisite for the purpose of this court to refer the disputed signatures of defendant Ramachari appearing on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and admitted signatures on Vakalatnama and written statements of defendant. Therefore, you are requested to examine and compare the signatures of defendant on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 with those signatures on Vakalatnama and written statements as per memo of instructions filed and submit your expert opinion on the documents enclosed………."
  5. Hon‘ble Prl. I Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore in C.C. No. 2211/10 case titled as Ameena Jan vs. Asma Sulthana vide order dated 05.12.2012 says, "……… you are hereby appointed commissioner for the purpose of (submission of opinion on questioned documents with regard to the age of ink)……."
KERALA
  1. Hon‘ble Ist Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassary (Kerala) vide Letter dated 06/10/90 in OS NO. 69/90 says, "...... Therefore, you are requested to proceed with the work and forward the report at an early date."
  2. 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.
  3. Hon‘ble Prl. Sub. Judge, Palakkad (Kerala) 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."
  4. Hon‘ble 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".
  5. Hon‘ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Earnakulam (Kerala) 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."
  6. Hon‘ble Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-I, Patanamthitta (Kerala) vide Letter dated 05/06/2002 says, "…. I am forwarding herewith a D.D…..(for opinion)."
  7. 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 ………, 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"
  8. 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."
  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 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."
COURT ORDER
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT ERNAKULAM
Present:- Sri P. Mohanadas, B.Sc., LL.B., Judge
Wednesday, the 19th day of November, 2014/28th Karthika, 1936
I.A. No. 3959/2014 in O.P. No. 1692/2012
 
Petitioner/Petitioner:
Reji Kurien Thomas, aged 44 years s/o M.K. Thomas, residing at 613, Katari Bagh, Naval Base, Kochi-682004
 
Respondent/Respondent:
Bindhu Thomas, aged 40 years, D/o Brigadier Retd. Angel Thomas, 804, Prassanna Vihar, Opp. High Court, Marine Drive, Kochi
 
This Petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to sent letters produced in this court to Handwriting Expert of choice of this court and direct him to file a report ascertaining whether the handwritings on those letters are that of respondent herein, came up for hearing before me on 19.11.2014 and the court on the same day passed the following:
 
ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner to refer few documents produced in this case for handwriting experts. The documents are shown to the respondent during cross- examination, wherein, the respondent denied handwriting and signature. Hence, the documents can be sent for handwriting experts as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, petition is allowed. Remit the fees payable to the handwriting expert. Call on 23.12.2014.

Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of November, 2014.

P. Mohanadas
Judge, Family Court
 
Sh. P. Mohandas, Hon‘ble Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam (Kerala) vide Letter dated 13/02/2015 in O.P. 1692/12 in case Reji Kurien Thomas vs. Bindhu Thomas says " ….(Ref.:- This court order dated 19.11.14 in I.A. 3959/14 in O.P. No. 1692/12)….. Hence, you are here by requested to send your report in a sealed cover to the Hon‘ble Court on or before 26/5/15."
 
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 (Forwarded by the Court for your opinion)"
 
MAHARASHTRA
  1. Sh. Anil B. Kulkarni, Hon‘ble 12th Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pune in SCC No. 14978/2011 vide Order dated 30/12/2014, says "……. Therefore, accused intends to send disputed cheque to Kashyap‘s International Forgery Detection Bureau, Delhi for determination of age of ink of signature thereon….. It is also to be noted that the accused is ready to take disputed cheque to this Bureau by hand and bear expenses for the same…… As such, I think it just and proper to send disputed cheque to Kashyap‘s International Forgery Detection Bureau, Delhi for determination of age of ink of signature of accused. Hence the order….."
    ………………….Court Order

  2. The Assistant Superintendent, Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 8, Pune (Mah.) in SCC No. 14978/2011 vide Letter dated 19/01/2015, says "…… Apropos of above subject, it is stated that the disputed cheque in SCC No. 14978/2011 is sent to your office for determination of age of ink of signature of accused on this cheque…… Your report is expected within one month from the date of receipt of cheque of you…… You are, therefore, requested to do the needful and submit report within stipulated period……"
 
ORISSA
  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."

    1a) Shri B.D. Tripathi, Advocate, Berhampur (Orissa) vide Letter dated 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."
  1. 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"
  2. Hon‘ble Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 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. Hon‘ble Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 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)"
  4. 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"
 
TAMILNADU
COURT ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 08/02/2010
V.D. Grahalakshmi ……….Petitioner
Vs.
Narayanan Venuprasad Menon …….Respondent
 
Prayer:- Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. against the Judgment passed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in M.P. No. 2293 of 2008 dated 13.06.2008 and prays to reverse the same.
 
ORDER

The dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 2293 of 2008 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Section 203 Cr. P.C. is under challenge in this revision…….

……It is again stated that on getting the xerox copy of the original application filed before Registrar, it was subjected to comparison by a handwriting expert by name Mr. Pt. Ashok Kashyap and the said expert has given a certificate that the signature is a forged one……..

….It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that though there is an averment in paragraph No. 6 of the complaint that Mr. Pt. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert has given a certificate on 30.07.2007 stating that the signature found on the application for the registration of marriage was a forged one, neither the said witness has been cited in the private complaint nor the document has been produced. For this, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is by inadvertence the same has been omitted. However, he would submit that the petitioner is prepared to produce the said witness by filing an additional list of witnesses and also documents…….”

S. NAGAMUTHU, J
 
UTTARAKHAND
  1. Shri Laxmi Prasad Notiyal, Adv., Uttarkashi (Uttrakhand) vide Letter dated 06/07/1989 in case SBI vs. Jageshwar Prasad and others in OS 35/1980 on the file of Hon‘ble Distt. Judge, Uttarkashi says, "……..I am a standing counsil for State Bank of India. Your opinion is required in at least 4 cases on disputed signatures. You may visit Uttarkashi Court (for inspection of documents and their photography) between 18.09.1989 to 22.09.1989."

    Note : Our office has received in the past original documents from several Hon’ble Courts for opinion from various Districts of Uttar Pradesh.
 
UNION TERRITORY
  1. The 1st Addl. Sub Judge, Pondicherry (U.T.) in Suit No. 68/90 vide summons dated 27/07/92says, “…..You are hereby summoned (to be present) to compare the signatures and report your opinion”.
 
CROSS EXAMINATION ON OPINION
 
  1. 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.
 
  1. The A.G.M., State Bank of India, Region-II, Zonal Office, Dehradun vide Letter dated 16/08/94 says, "We forward herewith a copy of the defendant‘s handwriting Expert report with a view to prepare your arguments for the cross examination at the Dist. Judge‘s Court, Tehri, Garhwal (U.P.) in case SBI, Majaf Branch Vs. Deep Ram Bhatt in which your opinion was filed". ...........................................……………………………… ......................................................Preparation of cross-examination

    2a) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Majaf (Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand) vide Letter dated 25.04.1995 says, "We forward herewith a Bank Draft for Rs. ………. on account of payment of your bill in connection with attendance at Tehri Court on 01.03.1995." (For Cross Examination)
 
  1. Sh. K.L. Sethi, Adv., Dehradun vide Letter dated 03/10/96 in case D.K.S. Rawat vs. Sudha Sharma in petition 106/88 on the file of Hon‘ble Distt. Judge, Dehradun says, "…… I am sending a photocopy of the expert opinion submitted by the other party against your opinion…..Kindly guide for the X-examination of the said expert (Saharanpur)."
 
  COURT AFFIDAVITS
  1. The AGM, State Bank of India, Chandni Chawk, Delhi vide Letter dated 01.02.2012 says, "The above matter (Shri ….. vs. SBI) is fixed for evidence on 09.02.2012 in the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-I, Room No. 38-A, Block-A, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi………. In this connection, please contact Bank‘s Advocate, ……………..… to discuss the matter with her for submitting the affidavit before the aforesaid date."
  1. Sh. S. S. Malhotra (DHJS), Hon‘ble Joint Registrar, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in CS(OS) 1473/1996 case titled as Sh. Gian Chand (Deceased) Through LR‘s vs. Santosh Kumar Rastogi vide Order dated 28.02.2014 says, "No DW is present. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has received copy of affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert today only………"
 
(III) SELECTED ALL INDIA COURT REFERENCES FOR EVIDENCE INCLUDING COMMISSIONS:
 
ANDHRA PRADESH
  1. Sh. A. Venku Reddy, Hon‘ble Distt. Judge, Rajamundary (A.P.) 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. 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".
  2. 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."
  3. 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".
  4. 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."
  5. The Central Nazir, Hon‘ble Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad vide the summons issued on 02/08/99 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. ……….. being your travelling and other expenses and subsistence allowance for one day is herewith sent ......"
  6. Dy. Nazeer, Hon‘ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, 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 …….. by 10.30 A.M. along with relevant documents, your travel and other expenses are deposited in the Court Account"
  7. Central Nazeer, Hon‘ble 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".
  8. Shri B. Rajesh, Adv. Kakinada (E.G.) vide Telegram dated 02/02/2009 says, "……. The Hon‘ble Ist Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Kakainad was pleased to order to issue the Telegram notice to (personally) appear (in this court on 06.02.2009) to give evidence in OS 65/2007."
  9. Superintendent, Central Nazarat, Hon‘ble 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".
  10. 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."
  11. Sri P. Sudarshan Rao, Hon‘ble V Special Magistrate Court, Hasthinapuram, R.R. Distt. Vide Letter dated 05/11/13 in C.C. No. 46/2012, says "…..(Ref:- Order Passed in Crl. M. P. No. 661/2013 Dt. 11/09/2013, on the file of this Court)…… Therefore, you are requested to examine and report at an early date."
BIHAR & JHARKHAND
  1. Hon‘ble Ist Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) 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."
  2. 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."
  3. Hon‘ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City (Jharkhand) vide Summons dated 17/03/1992 in Case No. 19/1998 titled as The management of Coal Mining Area Development Authority, Dhanbad and their workman Shri Sunil Kumar represented by Bokaro Karmachari Panchayat, Bokaro Steel City says, "your attendance is required to give evidence in connection with your report and opinion submitted to this court…… Therefore, you are requested to kindly attend court personally on 10.04.1992 at 8.00 A.M. for your evidence."
  4. 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"
DELHI (HIGH COURT)
  1. Ms. Deepali Sahgal, Advocate (Amarchand & Mangaldas & Hiralal Shroff & Co.) vide her Letter dated 6/04/1993 in case titled SBI vs. Hindustan Industries Ltd. pending before Hon‘ble Delhi High Court says, "This is to inform 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 Registrar, Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide Summons dated 23/11/93 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".
  1. 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……..….."
  1. Shri M. Sudesh, Asst. Manager (Secretarial & Legal) for Rubfila International Ltd. (Regd. Office : NIDA, Menonpara Road, Kanjikode P.O. Palakkad, Kerala) vide Letter dated 04/09/2007 in O.S. No. 2497/1999 before the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi says, "This has reference to the telecom we had on 30.08.2007 regarding the adjournment of above case which is posted for your appearance…… Kindly note, the subject case stands adjourned to 14.11.2007 for your cross examination."
  2. Sh. P.N. Bharadwaj, P.N. Bhardwaj & Co. Advocates, 311, Lawyers Chamers, High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi vide Letter dated 01/05/2014 in case of Gian Chand Vs. Santosh Rastogi i.e. C.S. (OS) No. 1473/1996, says "……Therefore please take note of the said directions, date of hearing and make all possible arrangements/efforts to appear alongwith your report as witness in the above mentioned case before the Hon‘ble High Court on 25.08.2014….."
  3. Sh. S.M. Chopra, Hon‘ble Addl. District Judge (Retd.) Local Commissioner vide Order dated 19/09/2014 in O.S. No. 1018/2004 titled as Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh & Ors. on the file of Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, says "…..Only one witness of the defendant remains to be examined namely Pt. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert engaged by the Defendants, a copy of whose report has already been provided to the Plaintiff. The said witness will appear on 07.11.2014 at 12.00 Noon in Chamber No. 5, Lawyers‘ Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi (the cousel for the Defendants has just spoken to the witness to confirm the date). The Defendants shall take steps for the Executive Centre, Stenographer and the Court record……"
 
DELHI (LOWER COURT)
  1. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Cannaught Place, New Delhi vide letter dated 19/05/1997 in case Export International vs. Union Bank of India on file of Hon‘ble --- Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi says, "An opinion was obtained from your office in the above case (42.HW.4.4.92)……. Now in the above case, your presence is required for giving evidence on behalf of Bank."
  2. Secretary to the Court, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, New Delhi vide summons dated 18/06/2012 in case Vinod Dutta Vs. State Bank of India, ID No. 141/2011 (pending before Dr. R. K. Yadav, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi) says, "…….Whereas an industrial dispute between Sh. Vinod Dutta Vs. State Bank of India has been referred to this Industrial Tribunal for adjudication …….. You are hereby, summoned to appear before this Industrial Tribunal in person on the 25th day of June, 2012 at 10.30 O‘clock to testify facts in the matter………"
  3. Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, Hon‘ble Matropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi vide Attendance Certificate dated 27/02/2013, says "……… Ashok Kashyap (Handwriting Expert) appears as to witness in case State vs. Surya Narayan (FIR No. 248/01, P.S. Badarpur) u/s 380 IPC……"
  4. Sh. Shailender Malik, Hon‘ble Sr. Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, District Courts, Rohini, New Delhi in case Rekha vs. Jai Bhagwan vide Summons dated 10/03/2015, says "…… your attendance is required to appear in this Court on 19/03/2015 at 10 A.M……"
 
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 (Your 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 M/s. Evergreen Properties and others." ............................................................. (At the District Court, Faridabad)
  2. Dy. Manager (Pers & Legal), Yamuna Power & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vide Letter dated 25.07.2009 says, "…….A report after examination of questioned documents by you was submitted in the court in the above noted case. The above said case (Your evidence on 17.08.2009 in the Case Titled as State of Haryana v/s Sunil Chopra pending in the Court of Ashwani Mehta, Hon‘ble JMIC Jagadhari) is pending for your evidence. You are therefore, requested to attend the court on 17.08.2009 at Jagadhari (Haryana) ……"
  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 his report on the disputed signatures of Bansi Lal)" …......................................Translated in English from Devanagari.

    Note: The above case relates to the evidence on the opinion of the disputed Will purportedly containing the disputed signatures of Shri Bansi Lal, Hon'ble Ex-Defence Minister of India & Ex-Chief Minister of Haryana.


    3a) Sh. Arunabh Chaudhary, Advocate, New Delhi vide his Letter dated 14.11.2011 in Civil Suit No. 294/2006 titled as Shruti Coudhry vs. Ranbir Singh Mahendra & Ors. pending before Smt. Sangeeta Rai Sachdev, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwani, Haryana says, "The Hon‘ble court has listed the matter for your evidence on 26.11.2011. We need to file your Affidavit by way of evidence latest by 19.11.2011. ……………You have to examine the said Will, photographs of which you have already taken from the Court and give a detailed analysis of the signatures contained therein in your Report."
 
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. 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".
  2. 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".
  3. Central Nazeer, In the Court of Hon‘ble 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."
  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 (detailed)"
  1. 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, Thrissur 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. O.U. Reddy, Hon‘ble Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance Formerly Sr. Civil Judge, Tenali, A.P.) vide Warrant of Commission in O.A. 144/2001 dated 21.08.2003 says, "……. You are hereby informed that the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 have agreed to pay __________ (Rs. ________) only towards commissioner‘s fees as claimed by you in your letter dated 19/08/2003…… You are, therefore, directed to appear before this Tribunal on 30/8/2003 for taking photographs and examination of documents." ……………Inspection of Documents
  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 2003 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."

    Note: Expert Kashyap appeared in two separate arbitration proceeding cases in Mumbai.

    He appeared before the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice H. Suresh (Retd.) J&K High Court in arbitration case titled as M/s Encee Projects (P) Ltd……Claimants vs. Narendra R. Shah……Respondants in Arbitration petitions 26-32 of 2003 to give his evidence on several dates at Hotel Atithee, near Mumbai Airport, Mumbai including 24.2.2009 & 7.7.2009.

    He was also engaged to appear in another Arbitration Petition No. 416/2005 …… Anil Kumar Bagai……Claimant vs. Ashok Kumar Bagai & Others……… Resondants and other on the file of Hon'ble Arbitration Tribunal, Mumbai being tried by Justice Shri M.S. Rane (Retd.) Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator…… He appeared in the office of Dharam & Co. Advocates, 104, Vardhaman Chembers 17, Cawasji patel street, Fort, Mumbai.
  1. 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 Hon‘ble Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) 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. Div.) 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, Dist. 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 (UNION TERRITORY

  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 arrange ments to come to Pondicherry for cross-examination".

    .......Permission granted by Hon‘ble Court to cross examine the expert from the opposite party i.e. Plaintiff‘s Expert Sh. Sheshgiri Rao, Anantpur (A.P.) (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 (Chennai) 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/UTTRAKHAND
  1. Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Deoria in case Nana Kishan Tiwari vs. Mukhlal Tiwari in OS 55/72 vide summons dated 22/03/1972 says, "……You are ordered to appear in this court on 16.4.72 to give evidence."
  2. CO, Deoria vide summons dated 16/12/1972 in case Swam Deo vs. Smt. Tajia says, "…….Your presence is required to give evidence on 29.12.72."
  3. Hon‘ble Judicial Magistrate, Gonda vide summons dated __________ in case Avadhram vs. Mangli Prasad in Suit No. 343/73 says, "…….You are ordered to appear before this court (to give evidence) on 16.8.73."
  4. SDO, HATA at Kasia (Distt. Deoria) vide summons dated 12/03/1974 says, "You are required to be present to give evidence in case Bhawani vs. Lallan on 21.3.74."
  5. Hon‘ble Munsiff, Deoria vide summons dated 20/08/1974 in case Tapeshwar vs. Gunraji says, "You are ordered to be present in the court on 18.09.74 at 10 A.M. (to give evidence)"
  6. Hon‘ble Ist Addl. Distt. Judge, Mathura vide summons dated 26/08/76 in case Kishan Chander vs. Mithanlal in OS No. 76/73 says, " ……….You are required to be present in the court (at Mathura) to give evidence on 27.08.76."
  7. Hon‘ble Ist Addl. Munsiff, Mathura vide summons dated 11/11/1976 in OS 56/74 titled Beni Ram vs. Saddu says "…….You are ordered to appear before this court (to give evidence) on 02.12.76."
  8. Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Badaun, U.P. vide summons dated 22/02/1977 in case Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Baburam in OS No. 93/73 says, "……your presence is required to give evidence in the court on 21.02.77."
  9. Sh. Anand Saran Dvividi, Adv. Deoria (U.P.) Letter dated 01/11/1977 says, "You have to appear for evidence in the court of IInd Addl. Munsiff, Deoria in OS No. 857/1970 on 15.11.77 in case titled Chakat Rai vs. Radha Pandey."
  10. Hon‘ble Munsiff, Lansdown (Garwal) vide summons dated 08/03/1979 in case M/s Umrao Prasad Gokalchand vs. Murlilal, Suit No. 32/73 says, "your presence is required at Kotdwar to give evidence on 05.04.1971."
  11. Hon‘ble Munsiff, Bisauli, Distt. Badaun (U.P.) vide summons dated 05/03/1980 in case Khaleel Ahmad vs. Chidanand in OS No. 107/74 says, "……. You are required to be present in the court to give evidence on the 10.3.80."
  12. Hon‘ble Munsif Ist, Dehradun vide summons dated 14.07.1980 in case Sh. Ashok P. Sharma vs. Amar Singh says, "your presence is required at Dehradun to give evidence on 01.08.1980."
  13. Hon‘ble 7th Addl. Munsiff, Meerut vide summons in case Tara Chand vs. Mukandlal says, "…. your presence is required (at Meerut) to give evidence on 01.09.1983."
  14. Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Nanital (Camp Haldwani) vide summons dated 17.12.1985 in case B. D. Kartoatak vs. D. C. Upreti in OS 92/83 says, "your presence is required in Nanital for giving evidence at 03.02.1986."
  15. 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)."
  16. Hon‘ble Special Court-1 (CBI), Ghaziabad (UP) vide summons issued on 16/06/2011 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, Kolkatta in case titled as 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 hereby summoned to appear before this court on 26/09/2012… To testify what you know concerning the matter..."

    Note: Expert Kashyap appeared before the above Hon‘ble Court at Kolkatta to give his evidence.
(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. 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."
  1. Sh. A. Venku Reddy, Hon‘ble District Judge, Rajahmundry (A.P.) in O.S. No 76/88 (D.D. 01/02/1991) 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)."
    ........Glorious Judicial Appreciation
  1. Shri Y.V. Ramakrishna, Hon‘ble Sub Judge, Tenali, in O.S. No. 88/87 (D.D. 17/7/1991) says, "I have examined the differences pointed out by Ashok Kashyap in his report and evidence and I am satisfied that his observations are correct. I have no hesitation to say that his observations are correct and deserve consideration. So the opinion of the Expert corroborates the testimony of the defendant."
  2. Sh. T. Pattabhi Ramarao, Hon‘ble Distt. Munsiff, Tekkali (A.P.) in O.S. No. 273/87 (D.D. 06/11/1992) 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
  3. Sh. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, Hon‘ble 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)."
  4. Sh. J. Shyama Sundara Rao, Hon‘ble 1st Addl. Dist. Judge, 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."
  5. Kum. Y.H. Prameela Reddy, Hon‘ble 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".
  6. Kum.Y. Sujanakumari, Hon‘ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ongole in O.S. No. 435/96 (DD. 10/12/2002) 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."
  7. Hon‘ble Subordinate Judge, Rajamundry (A.P.) in O.S. No. 90/70 says, "…………The plaintiff did not choose to cross examine the Handwriting Expert D.W.1 (Ashok Kashyap). The D.W.1 stated that the disputed signature is a tracing on the guidelines which could not be properly covered. It is evident that the said pronote is not proved, not valid, not supported by consideration and not executed by the deceased defendant (as opined by expert Ashok Kashyap)."
  8. Km. V.K. Saraswathi, Hon‘ble Prl. Distt. Munsif, Chittoor (A.P.) in O.S. No. 877/89 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 the endorsement is forged."
 

ASSAM

  1. Hon‘ble 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-1 & 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
 
  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. Shri A.L. Mahedevappa, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Chikmaglur (Karnataka) in S.C. No. 60/84, Syndicate Bank, Chikmaglur vs. Appyamma & Panduranga Rao (D.D. 10.07.86) says, "…….Ashok Kashyap, Examiner of Questioned Documents of Delhi was appointed as Commissioner. He opined that T.I. found in Ex. P1 is that of the first defendant. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 and the expert opinion, I am of the opinion that the first defendant stood for first guardantor for the loan. The suit is decreed with costs."
  2. Shri A.L. Mahadevappa, Hon‘ble Civil Judge, Chickmaglur (Karnataka) in O.S. 2/80 (D.D. 13.08.87) say, "…….One Ashok Kashyap, a reputed Handwriting Expert of Delhi has opined that the documents contained the writings of the defendant. His opinion has not been challenged by the defendant by filling any objection. The evidence of the plaintiff and the expert opinion clearly prove that Parasmal executed Ex. P2. The suit is decreed with costs."
  3. Shri A.M. Bennur, Hon‘ble Prl. Munsif, Chikmaglur (Karnataka) in O.S. 59/84 (D.D. 06.04.88) says, "…….The Expert Commissioner (Ashok Kashyap of Delhi) submitted his report. The natural, cogent and consistent evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the evidence of the said Handwriting Expert finds full corroboration with each other. This court is of the view that both the writings are of the defendant only. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs."
  4. Sh. A.T. Munnoli, Hon‘ble Prl. Munsiff, Hubli (Karnataka) in OS 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 Haridasan, Hon‘ble Munsif, Mannarghat (Kerala) in O.S. 100/75 (D.D. 29/3/80) says, "According to me the plantiff has not at all succeeded in proving the genuineness of Ex. A1………….. The suit is dismissed.

    Note : The documents were sent to Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi who opined that the disputed signature in pronote Ex. A1 was not made by the defendant. It went to Kerala High Court, Ernakulam on C.R.P. No. 2281/80-G which was dismissed on 29/9/80 as not admitted.


    1a) Hon‘ble Mr. Justice George Vadakkel, Judge, Kerala High Court, Ernakulam (Kerala) in C.R.P. 2281/80-G (D.D. 29/9/80) says, "…………The lower court (Munsif, Mannarghat) rightly said that there is no proof of execution of Ex. A-1 promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendants (as opined by Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi). No grounds to admit this C.R.P., thus it is dismissed." .................................................................................As Appellate Court
  1. Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari, Hon‘ble Prl. Munsif, Quilon (Kerala) in O.S. No. 717/85 (D.D. 29/01/1989) says, "……….. Ex. B-7, receipt was sent for expert opinion (of Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi). According to him, the signature in Ex. B-7 is not genuine. I have compared the signature in Ex. B-7 with the admitted signatures. I have to hold that Ex. B-7 is not genuine (as opined by the Expert Ashok Kashyap). In the result, the suit is decreed." ..............................................................................As Trial Court

    2a) Shri K. Sudhakaran, Hon‘ble District & Sessions Judge, Quilon (Kerala) in A.S. No. 142/89 (D.D. 17/8/1990) says, "…………The court below (Prl. Munsif, Quilon) decreed the suit of the plaintiff (by accepting the opinion of Ashok Kashyap). This means that Ex. B-7 is false. I do not find any reason to interfere with judgement passed by the learned court below. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs." ...............................................As First Appellate Court
  2. Sri K.N. Sathesan, Hon‘ble 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."
  3. Shri K.A. Augustine, Hon‘ble Munsif Magistrate, Pattambi (Kerala) in O.S. 113/87 (D.D. 1/10/91) says, "……………..It is case of the plaintiff that she has not executed any such document with her knowledge and consent. Hence this suit. The plaintiff is called absent, hence this is dismissed."

    Note : the documents were sent to Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi, who submitted his report that the disputed thumb impression and signature on Registered Surrender Deed were affixed by the plaintiff).
  4. Shri K.P John, Hon‘ble 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."
  5. 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).
 
UTTAR 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 (D.D. 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 J.S.P. Singh, Hon‘ble Munsiff, Kole, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 447/76 (D.D. 03/08/79) observes "The plaintiffs examined Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting expert. The defendants produced Expert D.W.I (B.N.S.) whose evidence cannot be relied upon."
  3. Shri Janardhan Pandey, Hon‘ble Vth Addl. Munsif, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. 421/78 (D.D. 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."
  4. Shri Ramprakesh Gupta, Hon‘ble Vth Addl. Munsiff, Bulandshahar (U.P.) in O.S. No. 174/77 (D.D. 01/10/80) observes : "……….Ashok Kashyap P.W.1 Handwriting Expert was produced. The Expert D.W.-1 (Sh. B.S.C. of Meerut) submitted his report which cannot be relied upon."
  5. Shri Ganga Ram, Hon‘ble Judge, J.S.C.C. Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 305/78 (D.D. 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."
  6. Shri K.D. Sahi, Hon‘ble 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."
  7. Shri J.P. Baigra, Hon‘ble Addl. Civil Judge, Bulandshahar (U.P.) in O.S. No. 12/77 (D.D. 10/08/81) observes: "………There is nothing in the evidence of expert Ashok Kashyap that may discredit his opinion."
  8. Sh. Om Rakesh Dixit, Hon‘ble VIII 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)
  9. Shri Sanwal Singh, Hon‘ble 3rd Addl. Dist. Judge, Etah (U.P.) as Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 128/80 (D.D. 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."
  10. Shri B.K. Rathi, Hon‘ble 2nd Addl. District Judge, Moradabad (U.P.) in Rent Control Appeal No. 12/85 (D.D. 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
 

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 (D.D. 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)
 
ANDHRA PRADESH
  1. Shri M.J. Vijayavardhan Rao, Hon‘ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in case Pandu Vs. Yadgiri (R.A. No. 340 of 1987) (D.D. 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

    1a) 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".
  2. Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Baddam Pratap Reddy vs Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy, Appeal Suit No.1404 of 2004 And Cross Objections (SR) No. 50168 of 2004 (D.D. 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
  3. Hon‘ble Sri Justice P.S. Narayana and Hon‘ble Sri Justice B. Chandra (DB) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Civil Revision Petition No. 5407 of 2008 (D.D. 10/07/2009) say, "This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A. No. 842 in O.S. No. 149 of 2002, dated 16/09/2008, by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District..... On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself had been examined as PW-1 and one of the attestors of Ex.A-1 had been examined as pw-2. At the instance of the respondent, Ex.A-1 pronote was sent to Pt. Ashok kashyap, handwriting expert (of Delhi), who in his report ex.c-5 opined that the disputed signature marked in Ex.a-1 is a forged one. Then the respondent had been examined as DW-1 and the handwriting expert Pt. Ashok kashyap had been examined as DW-2 and certain documents had been marked... The learned senior civil judge observed that the pronote Ex.A-1 had been already sent to the handwriting expert, who is a popular and renowned handwriting expert and that the said expert had given sound reasoning for the conclusions arrived at by him and that the said report is not set aside by the court... The main contention of the respondent is that Ex.A-1 was already sent to the handwriting expert, who had given his opinion and that merely because the opinion of the handwriting expert, is against to the wish of the petitioner, the opinion of the second expert cannot be taken. Moreover when the petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert Ashok Kashyap (DW-2) at length and nothing had been elicited from his evidence."
  1. Sh. Ch. K. Durga Rao, Hon‘ble III Addl. District Judge, Kakinada in I.A. No. 3096/11 in O.S. No. 7/2008 vide order dated 11/04/2012 says, "….. Since the plaintiff wants to examine Mr. v. Muralidhar, Scientific Offcier, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, who examined Ex. A1 promissory note in proof of his report and since the defendants and their advocate are not experts in the particular subject and since the defendants have also executed Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mr. Ashok Kashyap who is another handwriting expert, the defendants can be permitted to cross-examine the proposed witness by Mr. Ashok Kashyap another expert……."

    "…….I.A. 3096/11 is also ordered and Sri G.V.S. Vinayaka Rao, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of Sr. V. Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad. The said Advocate Commissioner shall permit Mr. Ashok Kashyap, another expert to cross-examine the said witness on behalf of the defendants…….."

    4 (a).   Hon‘ble Justice Sri M. Seetharama Murti, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 2191 of 2012 vide order dated 23/12/2013, says "………..The trial Court had allowed the application filed by the defendants and accorded permission to them to have the said expert (Mr. V. Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad) cross-examined by another expert by name Mr. Ashok Kashyap accepting the contention that the services of such a qualified and experienced expert are required to thoroughly cross-examine the expert, who furnished the opinion. It is an admitted fact that the defendants had executed a special power of attorney in favour of the said expert, Ashok Kashyap, to appear on their behalf and to cross-examine the expert, who had furnished the opinion…… If necessary, a qualified and an experienced Advocate can be engaged to cross-examine the expert witness. Further, such an Advocate can take the assistance and instructions from an expert like Mr. Ashok Kashyap and can cross examine the expert witness with such aid and assistance, if necessary...." …….…………...………………Hon‘ble A.P. High Court Order
 
DELHI
  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 (D.D. 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 (D.D. 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 (D.D. 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. Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Delhi High Court, Narender Nath Nanda vs State, Case No. 13/1994, says, "..........the petitioner, on the other hand, has produced a handwriting expert Ashok Kashyap (PW-1/1) whose opinion ought to be given due credence lastly, respondents in their cross-examination have not challenged the expertise of the petioner‘s expert witness Ashok Kashyap (PW-1/1). It was contended by Ms. Bhattacharya that the carbon impression of documents is admissible in evidence, and is treated as an original document. Being a primary document, …….in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he examined two witnesses one was handwriting expert mr. Ashok Kashyap (PW-1) ………..in this testimony he stood by his opinion that the disputed signatures D-1 to D-4 on the will dated 05/11/1987 (Ex R-1)was forged ………before I proceed further, it must be noted that there seems to be a good authority for the proposition that carbon impressions are primary documents. (See Smt. Kamala Rajamanikkam vs Smt. Sushila Thakur Dass & ORS.: Air 1983 Allahabad 90 and Prithi Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh: Air 1989 SC 702). ……..the last submission of Mr. Sahay that due credence ought to be given to the testimony of the expert witness PW-1, produced by the petitioner, especially in the circumstances, that even though the respondents had obtained an order from the court that they would be producing their own expert witness, they chose not to avail of the opportunity granted by the court. ………..the court allowed the application, and referred the matter to the Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for adducing his opinion. The Forensic Expert submitted his opinion that the unregistered will was forged.……Concurrent opinions of Private and Govt. Experts."
  5. Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Delhi High Court, Simran Ahluwalia vs. State, in C.C. No. 86/2010 dated 07/03/2012 says, "………the glaring facts which Learned Trial Judge has recorded are that the complainant has filed the list of witnesses and list of documents alongwith the record of handwriting expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap with her complaint".
  6. Sh. S. S. Malhotra (DHJS), Joint Registrar, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi Sh. Gian Chand (Deceased) through LR‘s Versus Santosh Kumar Rastogi in CS(OS) 1473/1996 vide Court Order dated 28/02/2014, says "…..No DW is present, Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has received copy of affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert today only .................................................Court Order
COMPANY LAW BOARD JUDGMENTS
  1. Shri S. Balasubramanian Chairman, Hon‘ble Judge, The Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in case Mrs. Uma Pathak and Shri Rajat Pathak vs. Eurasian Choice International Pvt. Ltd. in CP No. 19 of 2002, (D.D. 15/04/2004) says, "both the sides desired to get the signatures verified by two different experts, one suggested by the petitioners & the other suggested by the respondents. Accordingly, I appointed "Pt. Ashok Kashyap" and Shri B. Lal, (Ex. G.E.Q.D. Shimla) suggested by the petitioners and the latter by the respondents to give their opinion on the genuineness 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 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 expert (Ashok Kashyap) that the signatures on the minutes were forged & by another (Shri B. Lal) an indefinite opinion, I have made my own camprison…… in other words, signatures of the deceased on the minutes may not be genuine". (As opined by Ashok Kashyap). ..........................................(2004, 122 Company CAS 922, CLB)
  2. Vimla Yadav, Hon‘ble Judge, The Company Law Board in case Shri J.K. Paliwal and Shri B.K. vs Paliwal Steel Ltd. and ORS. (D.D. 31/05/2007) say, "My attention was drawn to Handwriting Expert's (Pt. Ashok Kashyap) Report evidencing the forgery it was pointed out that the report of handwriting expert (Mrs. R.K. Vij) placed on record by the respondents suffered from several discrepancies; ……..were not authenticated/verified by the expert neither by signature or initials nor by any rubber stamp, etc; Juxtaposition Chart was not placed on record, which is essential for the purpose of comparison between the admitted and disputed signatures; the two documents were to be compared in a photograph with the same degree of enlargement; ……..The contesting respondent has come to the high court with unclean hands. ……..In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. ……….The respondents in response to the same have also taken a report of an expert wherein the report of the expert clearly states that the signature on form 32 is of the petitioner no. 1 only. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have filed handwriting expert's report to substantiate their contention …….The petitioners have correctly pointed out various defects and discrepancies in the handwriting expert's report which the respondents' have furnished to give credence to their contentions in this regard. On considering these contentions, I find that the petitioners are on a sound ground" ………..………………..Importance of juxtaposition charts for comparison
 
JAMMU & KASHMIR
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice H. Imtiyaz Hussain, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in case titled as Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed Vs. State of J&K and Ors. in SWP No. 148/2006 (D.D. 09/05/2008), says, "………. Through the medium of this petition, petition Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed, who is a bank employee holding the post of cashier-cum-clerk in the UCO Bank, Srinagar has challenged the penalty of discharge from service imposed on him on the charge of grave misconduct….….. The respondents in order to establish the allegations/charges against the petitioner relied upon oral and documentary evidence and also placed before the enquiry officer opinion of the handwriting expert (Pt. Ashok Kashyap) about the alleged signatures of the petitioner. They examined three witnesses namely Mr. S. Manivanan, Pt. Ashok Kashyap and Mr. N. Bahaduri and produced 18 documents to substantiate the allegations/charges……. In the circumstances this petition is allowed. I leave it to the respondents that if they choose they may conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the rules……."
 
KERALA
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice George Vadakkel, Judge, Kerala High Court, Ernakulam (Kerala) in C.R.P. 2281/80-G (D.D. 29/9/80) says, "…………….The lower court (Munsif, Mannarghat) rightly said that there is no proof of execution of Ex. A-1 promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendants (as opined by Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi). No grounds to admit this C.R.P., thus it is dismissed." .........................................................................As Appellate Court
 
PUNJAB & HARYANA
  1. Hon‘ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh, in case smt. Sunil kumari vs dharampal and others case no. 3962 of 2010 (D.D. 08/10/2010) says, "Defendant-Sunil Kumari having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal…..Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannaur (Distt. Sonipat, Haryana) vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by Learned District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2010. Ashok Kashyap (PW-7) is Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. He has opined that the impugned agreement and receipt bear thumb impressions as well as singnatures of Sunil Kumari defendant ……Plaintiffs have led overwhelming evidence to prove their case. …..…..It is thus manifest that the suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the courts below …..…There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below…..the appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine".
 
RAJASTHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ORDER
Mohammed Anees                Versus                 Punjab National Bank & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6743/2006
Date of Order :                                                                      January 05, 2009
 

By the Court :

The orders Annx. 8 dated 29/03/2004, Annx. 9 dated 09/07/2005 and Annx. 11 dated 28/3/2006 have been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.

…….the petitioner, while working as the Manager with the respondent Punjab National Bank, Sangariya Branch, district Hanumangarh, was served with a Memorandum of Allegation under the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Disciplinary & Appeal) Regulations, 1977……. Hence this writ petition……

…….. the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and in the appeal, the petitioner requested the Appellate Authority for obtaining the opinion of the Handwriting Expert in respect of the two pay-in slips, by which the sum of Rs. 500/- each were deposited in the account of the borrowers Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid…… The opinion of the Handwriting Expert was sought and the Handwriting Expert Shri Ashok Kashyap, after comparing the handwritings of the petitioner on various documents…… has opined that the handwritings on the two pay-in slips Annex. R/1 are of the petitioner………

……….On the contrary, before the Appellate Authority, it was the petitioner himself who had requested the Appellate Authority to get the two pay-in slips examined and compared by the Handwriting Expert and the request of the petitioner, the same were got examined by Handwriting Expert Shri Ashok Kashyap from the admitted signatures ………. And the Handwriting Expert opined against the petitioner……..

In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, no fault can be found with the conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. The punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to that of the delinquency.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands dismissed.

(H.R. PANWAR), J.
 
TAMIL NADU
  1. Hon‘ble Mr. Justice S. Nagamuthu, Madras High Court, in case V.D. Grahalakshmi vs Narayanan Venuprasad Menon, Case No. 855 of 2008, (D.D. 8/02/2010), says "……..It was pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that though there is an averment in paragraph no.6 of the complaint that Mr. Pt. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert has given a certificate (Opnion) on 30.07.2007 stating that the signature found on the application for the registration of marriage was a forged one, neither the said witness has been cited in the private complaint nor the document has been produced. For this, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is by inadvertence the same has been omitted. However, he would submit that the petitioner is prepared to produce the said witness by filing an additional list of witnesses and also documents……."

    Note: Ashok Kashyap Handwriting Expert attended the court of Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in case M.P. No. 2293/08 on 17.03.2010 to give his evidence and it went to Hon'ble Madras High Court.
 
Utar Pradesh
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. (D.D. 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 Expert
 
(V) 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 of India 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)
  2. 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".
  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 18/04/06 says, "…..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. 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 Compliment

    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.
 
(VII) Brief List of Cases in which Our Bureau’s Experts Believed by Hon’ble Courts in Preference to Govt. & Private Experts allover India Since 1996 onwards
 
a) Judgment pertaining to Late Shri Ugrasen Kashyap, Handwriting Expert
 
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."
..................Judgment pertaining to Late Shri Ugrasen Kashyap (Founder of this office)
 
b) Judgment pertaining to Late Prof. B. B. Kashyap, Handwriting Expert of Jaipur
 
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice A. Raghuvir & Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray, Judges A.P. High Court, Hyderabad, in L.P.A. 44/81 (D.D. 24.12.1986) say, "…….Plaintiff referred the disputed thumb impression of Ex. A1 to P.W.4, A.P. Govt. Fingerprint Bureau Expert at Hyderabad……. It was not possible for him to decipher the disputed T.I. The debtor sent it to another expert Prof. B. B. Kashyap of Jaipur, who opined that the disputed fingerprint was not that of the debtor. The trial court held that the debtor did not execute the disputed pronote Ex. A1 (by relying on the expert opinion of Prof. B. B. Kashyap, D.W.7, in preference to the expert opinion of P.W.4, A.P. Govt. Fingerprint Bureau Expert) and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Single Judge found that the creditors‘ case is true (i.e. rejected the expert opinion of Prof. B. B. Kashyap D.W.7). We are unable to agree with the reasonings on the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. The expert evidence is unhelpful to the creditor. We see the order under appeal is unsustainable. We reverse the same. The L.P.A. is allowed (i.e. expert opinion of Prof. B. B. Kashyap is accepted.)……."
 
c) Judgments pertaining to Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert of Delhi preferring his opinion to other Govt./Pvt. experts
 
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) says, "... 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
 
BIHAR
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)
 
DELHI
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, (D.D. 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 expert (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 case 922(CLB)
 
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).

    1a) 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
 
JHARKHAND
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)
 
KARNATAKA
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 disbelieved
 
KERALA
Shri P.S. Antony, Hon‘ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trissur in C.C. No. 44/2000 in case M/s Sakthan Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd. (Complainant) vs. Dr. P.V. Sajeesh (D.D. 22.1.12) says, "…….This is a private complaint against the accused for offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC………… On the application of accused, Ext. P3 cheque along with standard and specimen signatures were sent for the opinion of the handwriting expert………. On the side of the accused, DW1 Handwriting Expert (N. Sukumar Chittiar, Retd. Govt. Expert from State Forensic Lab (SFL), Thiruvananthapuram) who gave Ext. D5 report was examined……. Thereafter as per order dated 25.3.2011 in CMP No. 685/2009 of this court. Ext. P3 cheque along with standard signature and admitted signatures was sent to another expert for a second expert opinion following the direction of the Hon‘ble High Court of Keral in Crl. M.C. No. 724/2009 filed by the accused. DW1 (Govt. Expert) had given the opinion that the accused was the author of the disputed signature in Ext. P3. It was aggrieved by this opinion, the accused had filed Crl. M.C. No. 724/2009 before the Hon‘ble High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) and CMP No. 685/09. After obtaining the second expert opinion to the effect that the accused was not the author of the disputed signature in Ext. P3 cheque, expert was examined as DW3 (Ashok Kashyap, Delhi) and Ext. D10 series report was marked………. It has come out from the examination of DW1 expert that the report is not supported by any photographic enlargement of the disputed signature. What the expert has done is that he has noted some similarities and some dissimilarities in the standard signatures and the disputed signatures. Evaluating the similarities and dissimilarities, he has opined that the petitioner is the author of the disputed Q1 signature. As pointed out by learned course for the petitioner, all the experts usually take the photographic enlargement of the disputed signature so as to find minute and hidden aspects in the writing habits. Here the expert has not taken the photographic enlargement of the disputed signatures so as to demonstrate before the court and inform the court his reasons for coming into an opinion of the signature. The learned counsel for the accused has cited authorities………….. who have categorically emphasized the role of importance of photographic enlargements in the case of handwriting analysis and detection of forgery……………. This court is of the opinion that no firm opinion can be given that the disputed signatures in Ext. P3 is that of the accused……. the court can only come to the conclusion that the complainant has not succeeded to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt……….. 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."
 
UTTAR 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 (D.D. 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 J.S.P. Singh, Hon‘ble Munsiff, Kole, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 447/76 (D.D. 03/08/79) observes "The plaintiffs examined Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting expert. The defendants produced Expert D.W.I (B.N.S.) whose evidence cannot be relied upon."
  3. Shri Janardhan Pandey, Hon‘ble Vth Addl. Munsif, Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. 421/78 (D.D. 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."
  4. Shri Ganga Ram, Hon‘ble Judge, J.S.C.C. Aligarh (U.P.) in O.S. No. 305/78 (D.D. 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."
  5. Shri K.D. Sahi, Hon‘ble 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."
  6. Shri Ramprakesh Gupta, Hon‘ble Vth Addl. Munsiff, Bulandshahar (U.P.) in O.S. No. 174/77 (D.D. 01/10/80) observes : "Ashok Kashyap P.W.-1 Handwriting Expert was produced. The Expert D.W.-1 (Sh. B.S.C. of Meerut) submitted his report which cannot be relied upon."
  7. Shri J.P. Baigra, Hon‘ble Addl. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (U.P.) in O.S. No. 12/77 (D.D. 10/08/81) observes: "There is nothing in the evidence of expert Ashok Kashyap that may discredit his opinion."
  8. 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)
  9. Shri Sanwal Singh, Hon‘ble 3rd Addl. Dist. Judge, Etah (U.P.) as Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 128/80 (D.D. 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."
  10. Shri B.K. Rathi, Hon‘ble 2nd Addl. District Judge, Moradabad (U.P.) in Rent Control Appeal No. 12/85 (D.D. 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."
 
(VIII) 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. 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
  3. Sh. Utpal Kumar Das, Managing Director, Powermann Bangladesh Limited vide Letter dated 14/06/2007 says, "Now we are requesting you to verify the signatures of page 6/12 with other 10 pages" .................................Bangladesh
  4. 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 and Photographs)......" .............Sri Lanka
 
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