Farhan Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1850 of 2019

------

Farhan Hussain, aged about 28 years, son of A. Hussain, resident of HST Complex, S-Type, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, DistrictSeraikella-Kharsawan.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Gabbu Lal Jaisawal, son of Late Mangal Ram Jaisawal, resident of Phase-1/4C, Lok Nath Complex, Prathma, Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate ------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated

¶15

06.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at

¶16

¶17

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶19

Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.576 of 2016 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sending the Exhibits-3 & 3/1 for opinion of the handwriting expert.

¶20

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of C/1 Case No.576 of 2016 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur involving the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the opposite party no.2 is the accused of the said case. The signature of the accused in the cheque is admitted and during the trial of the case, two documents were marked as Ext.-3 & 3/1 without any objection of the defence. Those are two bills, which is per the case of the complainant was signed by the accused as a receiver of materials. The defence of the accused person of the case is that the signature of the accused on the bills is false as the complainant did not supply the materials, therefore the accused intimated his bank to stop payment of the cheques; which were issued as an advance by the accused person, in anticipation of the receipt of the fruits. Prima facie , it appeared to the trial court that the signature appearing in Ext.-3 & 3/1 and the admitted signature appearing on the cheque appears to be the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur considered that the Ext.3 & 3/1 are the carbon copy of the acknowledgment of the receipt of the

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶23

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶24

materials, hence, they being carbon copies, they are not fit to be sent for handwriting expert. Further, since the signature in the cheque of the accused person of the case was admitted, so Ext.-3 & 3/1 was only of corroborative value and the accused person though is in possession of the original tax invoice no.41 and 43 of which Ext.-3 & 3/1 are carbon copies, but he did not produce the same. The petition was filed after closure of the prosecution evidence and when the case was fixed for defence evidence and by thus considering, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur rejected the petition for sending the Ext.-3 & 3/1 to a handwriting expert.

¶25

The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2019 in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2019 took note of the fact that the documents sought to be sent for a handwriting expert’s opinion are carbon copies, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur failed to understand that when the defence is challenging the genuineness of the signature in the carbon copies, how the trial court had given liberty to the accused person to furnish the original tax invoice no.41 and 43, the carbon copies of which were marked as Ext.-3 & 3/1 and further observed that without obtaining an opinion of expert, the trial Court cannot come up its own finding regarding the genuineness of the signature and by thus observing set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and observed that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur shall take

¶26

¶27

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶28

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶29

appropriate steps on the basis of the said application and get the opinion of expert by sending the admitted and disputed signature of the accused to the handwriting expert and further observed that whether the expert opinion on the carbon copy of the document could be given or not in the matter of opinion to be furnished by the experts.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned in the criminal revision being an interlocutory order, hence, the revision is not maintainable being barred under the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has failed to considered that the trial court was well within its jurisdiction to comply the signatures prima facie arriving at its own opinion. It is next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur failed to take into consideration that the petition was filed by the accused person only to linger the case. It is then submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to consider the admitted case of the accused person that the original tax invoice no.41 and 43 is in his possession, so the production of original invoice in the court will go to show whether its carbon copy is genuine or not by comparing the original with the carbon copy. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

¶31

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the

¶32

¶33

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶34

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶35

opposite party no.2 has deposited the cost of Rs.3,000/- in the Court below on 26.07.2024, but as yet, the report of the handwriting expert has not been obtained and the case is lingering, awaiting the report of the handwriting expert. It is next fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the complainant in his deposition has stated that he has no objection for the document to be sent to the handwriting expert, hence, the trial Court ought to have sent it to the handwriting expert. It is lastly submitted that therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶36

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed facts remains that the original tax invoice no.41 & 43 is in custody of the opposite party no.2. It is plain and simple that since it is the claim of the complainant that the carbon copies of the said documents bears the signature of the opposite party no.2-accused person of the case, so if the original tax invoice is produced, the same would either not be bearing the signature of the accused person or the same would be bearing the same signature as is appearing on the carbon copy. It is incongruous, how the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur could not appreciate this simple fact by understanding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur gave liberty to the accused person of the case to produce the original tax invoice no.41 to 43 during the defence evidence, so that the

¶37

¶38

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶39

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶40

same can be compared with the carbon copy of the same; which have been marked exhibit. Hence, this Court finds that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur that he failed to understand the reason for the liberty given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur to the accused persons to produce the original documents of Ext.3 & 3/1, which were undisputedly in the possession of the accused persons of the case; only shows the poor mental ability of the Sessions Judge concerned. Otherwise, also it is a settled principle of law that the evidence in the form of opinion of a handwriting expert is opinion evidence. The signature identification is not an exact science like identification of a person on the basis of his fingerprints, DNA or other biometric parameters.

¶41

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwan vs. Maharaj reported in AIR 1973 SC 1246 as also in the case of Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 has held that evidence of a handwriting expert unlike that of fingerprint expert is generally of frail character and its fallibilities might have been quite often noticed and therefore having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution and the reason for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined.

¶42

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fakruddin vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 has reiterated

¶43

¶44

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶45

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶46

the settled principle of law that the testimony of a handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence.

¶47

It is also pertinent to mention here that the opinion of a handwriting expert is based on the details like pressure of the pen, flow, 3D features, the reliability of these parameters further lower in case, carbon copies of the documents are sent to a handwriting expert. So, under such settled principles of law, keeping in view the fact that the offence involved is punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the signature on the cheque, which was dishonoured is admitted by the accused person of the case; the genuineness of the purported signature of the accused person on Ext.-3 & 3/1 whether belongs to the accused person or not can better be determined upon production of original of the same being tax invoice no.41 and 43 which was admittedly in the possession of the accused person, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for sending the carbon copies of the document to the handwriting expert, but the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has failed to appreciate the matter and unnecessarily and without any justifiable reason has set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 06.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2019 being not sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside being.

¶48

¶49

Cr. M.P. No.1850 of 2019

¶50

( 2025:JHHC:37689 )

¶51