A single judge dismissed a criminal petition seeking expert comparison of the accused's disputed signatures with specimen signatures obtained in court. The court held that such comparison is barred to prevent manipulation and found no bona fides in the petitioner's delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2697 of 2007
DATE:15.07.2010
Between:
P.Jagan Mohan Rao,
…… Petitioner/Accused.
And:
State of A.P rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another.
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2697 of 2007
ORDER:
This petition is filed questioning order dated 08.06.2006 in Crl.M.P.No.1298 of 2005 in C.C. No.181 of 2004 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused to send a letter marked as Ex.P-8 to an expert for comparison of signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2) Simply because the document is marked without any objection, it is no ground to contend that the document is not disputed. Whether objection is taken or not, the party is entitled to contend that the document which is marked as exhibit is forged one.
3) The petitioner wanted to examine signature in the disputed document Ex.P-8 with his specimen signatures to be obtained in Court. It is well settled principle of law that there can be no comparison of signatures with specimen signatures to be obtained in Court, particularly after the accused was charge sheeted because there is every possibility of the accused simulating or
camouflaging his signatures in Court in order to mislead the Court and the expert. It is not as if the petitioner wanted scrutiny of his signatures by the experts with his admitted signatures in any registered documents or official documents. Therefore, the lower Court rightly dismissed this petition. The petitioner after keeping quiet for nearly one year after passing the impugned order, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C with this Criminal Petition. I see absolutely no bonafides on the part of the petitioner.
4) Hence, the petition is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 15, 2010 KSH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused can request to compare their admitted specimen signatures obtained in court with disputed signatures on an exhibit.
Whether the lower court was right in dismissing a petition seeking expert opinion on signature comparison.
Whether the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C bona fide.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Jagan Mohan Rao
State of A.P
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
