SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS 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 DECIDED ON 08/11/2000} SAY,..“IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT WAS SENT FOR SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION. PW-8, ASHOK KASHYAP, WHO IS STATED TO BE HAND WRITING & FINGERPRINT EXPERT, DEPOSED THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED: 30/01/95 & FOUND EVIDENCE OF INTERPOLATION AT PAGES 2 & 3”
…………………………….............................................(AIR 2001 SC 134) |
| |
|
|
SHRI J.D. KAPOOR, HON’BLE JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE |
| |
MANMOHAN SINGH & Ors. VS. JOGINDER KAUR & Anr. IN {SUIT NO. 921 OF 1993 & PR NO. 38/1992 DECIDED ON: 19/07/2002} SAYS, “ DW-5 ASHOK KASHYAP, HANDWRITING EXPERT HAS EXAMINED THE DISPUTED SIGNAURES 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) |
| |
|
|
SHRI BADAR DURREZ AHMED, HON’BLE JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN |
| |
CASE MRS. SARASWATI CHATTERJEE VS. STATE, IN {IA NO. 4300/1996 IN TEST CASE, 35/1995 DECIDED ON 13/03/2006} SAYS, “ONE MR. ASHOK KASHYAP, A HANDWRITING EXPERT (DW-7), WAS ALSO EXAMINED AND HE ALSO MADE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT THE SIGNATURES APPEARING AT MARK ‘A-2’ & ‘A-3’ IN THE SAID PURPORTED WILL APPEARED TO BE FORGED & 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 PERFECTLLY CORRECT & CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE”. ……………………129(2006) DLT 204 |
| |
|
|
SHRI S.U.KHAN, HON’BLE JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE |
| |
KESHAV RAM (D.) THROUGH L.Rs. VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & Ors. DECIDED ON 05/07/2007, SAYS, “ AGAINST ORDER DATED: 29/08/19 APPEAL NO. 291/39 WAS FILED. S.O.C. RECORDED A 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”. |
| |
|
|
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 P.W.-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 BY MY PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE.
………….THE SAID EXPERT, WHO IS EXAMINED AS P.W.-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 P.W-1 & I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE OPINIONS GIVEN BY PWS. 2 & 3, (Ashok kashyap) THAT THE DISPUTED SIGNATURE IS A FORGED ONE”. |
| |
|
|
SHRI IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO HON’BLE JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF |
| |
ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD IN. {CIVIL REVISION PETTION NO. 582 OF 1991} DECIDED ON 25/01/91, SAYS, “THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO TAKEN PAINS TO COMPARE THE DISPUTED SIGANTURE ON EX.R.-2 WITH THE ADMITTED SIGNATURES IN EX.R-1, VAKALAT AND THE DEPOSITION OF THE LANDLORD AS RW-1, ACCEPTED THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY P.WS-2 &3 (ASHOK KASHYAP) THAT THE DISPUTED SIGNATURE EX-R-2 IS A FORGERY. BOTH THE LEARNED RENT CONTROLLER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED 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”. |
| |
|
|
SHRI L. NARASIMHA REDDY, HON’BLE JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA |
| |
PRADESH AT HYDERABAD IN {CRP NO. 4781 OF 2005, BHERI NAGESWARA RAO VS. MAVURI VEERABHADRA RAO & Ors.} DECIDED ON: 03/04/2006 SAYS, “ HEARD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PETITIONERS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO SEND EXS. P-13 & P-15 TO MR. ASHOK KASHYAP FOR EXAMINATION WITH ADMITTED & SPECIMEN SIGANTURES OF FIRST RESPONDENT. THE TRIAL COURT OUGHT TO HAVE EXHIBITED LITTLE MORE ATTENTION TO THE MATTER”……………………(AIR 2006 AP314) |
| |
|
|
SHRI S. BALASUBRAMANIAN (CHAIRMAN), HON’BLE JUDGE THE COMPANY LAW |
| |
BOARD, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI IN CASE MRS. UMA PATHAK & SHRI RAJAT PATHAK VS. EURASIAN CHOICE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. IN (CP NO. 19 OF 2002, DECIDED ON: 15/04/2004 SAYS, “ BOTH THE SIDES DESIRED TO GET THE SIGNATURES VERFIED BY TWO DIFFERENT EXPERTS-ONE SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONERS & THE OTHER SUGGESTED BY THE RESPONDENTS. ACCORDINGLY, I 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 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 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 COMPRISON……….. 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) |
| |
|
|
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GEORGE VADAKKEL, JUDGE, KERLA HIGH COURT, |
| |
ERANAKULAM, IN C.R.P. 2281/80-G (D.D. 29/09/80) 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.” |
| |
|
|
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chettur Shankaran Nair, Kerala High Court Ernakulam |
| |
in S.A. 33/91 (D.D. 19-07-92) says, “ The trial court held that Ex. B-7 produced by the defendant was a piece of forgery. It came to this conclusion relying largely on Ex. C-1 (Report of Shri Ashok Kashyap Document Expert, Delhi). The appeal court also found that Ex. B-7 was not genuine. The finding of facts are reasonable. The appeal fails and id dismissed. |
| |
|
|
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 IBRAHIM AFIFF VS. AYASHA} SAY. “ THIS IS TO CONFIRM THAT THE COURT ( HIGH COURT SINGAPORE), HAD ACCEPTED YOUR EXPERT OPINION 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”. |
| |
|
|
Mr. Danial Latiffi, Bar at Law, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi |
| |
vide his letter …… I have carefully studied the report you have prepared regarding the signature I think you have brought out the significant features of the signatures under enlargements and by the lucid reasoning. I have no doubt that it will be considerable court, when in due course the matter comes before their Lordships” …… (Opinion Hon'ble Supreme Court of India)” |
| |
|
| |
|
HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS & OTHERS |
| |
|
|
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. Panduranga Rao, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, |
| |
in C.R.P. No. 91 says, “…… Both the learned Controller as well the appellate Author concurrent finding. I therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent arrived at by the court below. (Both the learned courts below agreeing with the opinion Kashyap that Ex. R2 is forged). The revision petition is dismissed.” |
| |
|
|
Hon'ble Munsiff, Kondugallur (Kerala) in OS 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 judgements 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 judgement of various High Courts and Supreme Courts bear an ample testimony of the knowledge of this expert. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex. A-3 is not executed by the defendant (as opined by Ashok Kashyap). |
| |
|
|
Sh. A. T. Munnoli, Principal Munsif, Hubli (Karnataka) in O.S. No. 378/89 |
| |
(DD 29-01-89) 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 the defendant that the suit pronote is got up one. The suit is dismissed ………… “ GOVERNMENT EXPERT DISBELIEVED. |
| |
|
|
Shri. Bhikhari Ram, Ist Addl. District & Session Judge, Deltonganj |
| |
(Subsequently Registrar, Patna High Court) in M.A. 3/1984 (D.D. 30-04-88) says, “…… P.W.3 expert …… held his opinion in favour of the plaintiff. The dependent also got another Handwriting Expert examined as D.W.3 (Ashok Kashyap of Delhi) and he gave just a contrary opinion. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff after accepting the evidence of the plaintiff. In this case, I have myself looked to the disputed signatures. From the perusal of these Handwritings by naked eye. It appear that the writer of the specimen signatures was not the man who signed the disputed receipts (as opined by Expert Ashok Kashyap). In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree passed by the learned court below (Munsif-Garwha) is hereby set aside.” |
| |
|
|
Mr. Kenneth Peraira of Allen & Gladhil Advocates & Notary Public Singapore, |
| |
vide letter dated 10th September, 1997 says, “Dear Mr. Kashyap, letter dated 07-07-1997. This is to confirm that the High Court (Singapore) expert opinion and evidence at Singapore. Once again please allow me to professional services rendered. |
| |
|
|
Mr. Danial Latiffi, Bar at Law, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi |
| |
vide his letter …… I have carefully studied the report you have prepared regarding the signature I think you have brought out the significant features of the signatures under enlargements and by the lucid reasoning. I have no doubt that it will be considerable court, when in due course the matter comes before their Lordships” …… (Opinion Hon'ble Supreme Court of India)” |
| |
|
|
Hon'ble Shri N. Vidya Sagar, Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vizianagram (A.P.) |
| |
vide his letter dtd. 06-11-93 says, “………… I Watched with interest the telecast (featuring you) in Turning Point (On T.V.). Your effort to advance the Science & its uses is commendable.” |
| |
|
| |
|
LOWER COURT JUDGMENTS (INDIA) |
| |
|
|
Shri S. Ramakrishna Reddy Add. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi is OS 30/88 |
| |
(D.D. 21.1.93) 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). |
| |
|
|
Kum. Y.H. Prameela Reddy. Prl. Junior Civil Judge. Kumool, in OS No. 797 of |
| |
1998 (D/D 14.3.200) says, “…Both sides have adduced evidence. The handwriting expert. Pt. Ashok Kashyap was examined as P.W.2. The handwriting expert in not an interested witness. Moreover as per his testimony he got very good reputation in his field as an 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……” |
| |
|
|
Shri. A.Venku Reddy, District Judge, Rajahmundry in OS no. 76/88(D.D.1.2.91) |
| |
says, ".....I am satisfied that DW-3(Ashok Kashyap) is a competent expert in the art of Handwriting . I agree with the opinion expressed by DW-3. I have no hesitation to hold that EX.A-3 is not a genuine letter(as opinioned by Ashok Kashyap). |
| |
|
|
Kum.y.Sujanakumari, Hon'ble Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ongole in O.S. No. 435/96 |
| |
(DD.10.12.02) says, "...During pendency of the suit, Ex. B-1 was sent to the Govt. Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad for comparison of thumb impressions on Ex. B-1 at the instance of the defendants. The Expert PW-3 sent a report, marked as Ex. A-5 stating that for want os 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 who gave opinion stating that the thumb impressions 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. |
| / |
|
|
Kumari V.K. Sarasvathi Prl. Dist. Munsif, Chittoor in OS No. 33/88 |
| |
(D.D. 30.11.89) says. “…… I do not find any discrepancy in the evidence of the handwriting expert (Ashok Kashyap) and nothing could be elicited by the plaintiff’s counsel which could falsify the defence taken up by the defendants. The handwriting expert has given out elaborate reasoning for coming to conclusion about the disputed signatures as forged ones. After going through the evidence of the handwriting expert. I feel that the signatures found in Ex. A-1 & A-2 are forged ones. |
| |
|
|
Shri D. Appa Rao, Prl.Sub Judge, kakinada(A.P) in OS. No.34/83 says, |
| |
"....the report of DW-2(Ashok Kashyap) could be only considered along with other factors for upholding the condition of the defendant. This issue is also held in the favor of defendant and against the plaintiff. |
| |
|
|
Shri G.V.Seethapathy, Prl. Dist. Munnif Kakinada in OS 877/79(D.D. 13.5.85) |
| |
says, ".....pw-1(Ashok Kashyap) submitted his report Ex. X-1 opining that the disputed signatures Q-1 to Q-4 on the agreement dtd. 20.12.76 are not written by the writer of admitted signatures and that in other words, the disputed signatures on the on the unregistered agreement are forged. The report od PW-1 is only an added circumstances which weighs against the contention of the defendant. In these circumstances, the palintiff is held entitled for the injuction prayed for." |
| |
|
|
Shri T. Pattabhi Ramarao, Dist. Munsif, Tekkali in OS No. 273/87 (D.D. 6.11.92) |
| |
says “D.W. 2 is the fingerprint and handwriting expert (Ashok Kashyap). The leamed counsel (for the defendant) further argued that the evidence of D.W. 2 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 Shri 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” |
| |
|
|
Sh. J.Shyama SUndara RAo, Hon'ble 1st Addl.D.J Warangal in A.S.No. 51/96 |
| |
(D.D.17.8.98) says, "....I do not find any reasons to reject the evidence of DW-3, (Ashok Kashyap). In present case the trial court(P.D.M, Warangal) did not give any reasons as to why it has to come to a different conclusion than that of expert DW-3." Hence, I have to say that expert's opinion has to be given credence. In the result the appeal is allowed, the trial court judgments and decree are set aside." |
| |
|
|
Sh. A. T. Munnoli, Principal Munsif, Hubli (Karnataka) in O.S. No. 378/89 |
| |
(DD 29-01-89) 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 the defendant that the suit pronote is got up one. The suit is dismissed
…….................................... “GOVERNMENT EXPERT DISBELIEVED. |
| |
|
|
Hon'ble Munsiff, Kondugallur (Kerala) in OS 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 judgements 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 judgement of various High Courts and Supreme Courts bear an ample testimony of the knowledge of this expert. I have no hesitation to hold that Ex. A-3 is not executed by the defendant (as opined by Ashok Kashyap)
............................................................COURT APPRECIATION |
| |
|
|
Shri. Bhikhari Ram, 1st Addl. District & Session Judge, Deltonganj |
| |
(Subsequently Registrar, Patna High Court) in M.A. 3/1984 (D.D. 30-04-88) says, “…… P.W.3 expert …… held his opinion in favour of the plaintiff. The dependent also got another Handwriting Expert examined as D.W.3 (Ashok Kashyap of Delhi) and he gave just a contrary opinion. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff after accepting the evidence of the plaintiff. In this case, I have myself looked to the disputed signatures. From the perusal of these Handwritings by naked eye. It appear that the writer of the specimen signatures was not the man who signed the disputed receipts (as opined by Expert Ashok Kashyap). In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree passed by the learned court below (Munsif-Garwha) is hereby set aside.” |
| |
|
