considered by learned Judicial Magistrate, but learned Magistrate did not find the said defence in favour of accused (respondent no.2). Learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that Anand Ram Arya executed an agreement to sell a piece of land for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- by portraying his ownership over the land in question, which, in fact, did not belong to him, but was a forest land. Anand Ram Arya could not prove that the disputed land was not of forest department. He could not prove before the trial court that he was the owner of the land in question, in respect of which he executed an agreement to sell for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. A plea was taken before the trial court that PW9 Naveen Chandra Pant did not give a definite opinion about the signatures of Anand Ram Arya. It is indicated by this Court in one of the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment that the Government Handwriting Expert opined that the specimen signatures marked as S1 to S3 show an attempt to disguise. Even if PW9 did not give a definite opinion, nothing prevented the accused (respondent no.2 herein) to examine private fingerprint expert in support of his contention that he did not append signatures on the agreement to sell. The trial court, therefore, concluded that Anand Ram Arya sold the property, which belongs to the forest department.
