Skip to content


Debendra Chandra Mondal Vs. Ratan Mitra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. No. 1731 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Cal316
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Section 45
AppellantDebendra Chandra Mondal
RespondentRatan Mitra
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Ganguly and ;K.R. Purkait, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateSamar Kumar Ghose, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the learned court on opening the cover found that after comparison the expert could not form any definite opinion. thereupon, the defendant-petitioner filed an application before the learned judge, court of the small causes, calcutta, for referring the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures to a forensic expert at his own cost. after considering the application the learned court below rejected the same. being aggrieved by that order dated 24-4-1981, the present rule was obtained.2. appearing before me mr. ganguly contends that this time the signatures should be sent to a greater and better expert so his petition should have been allowed. when the signatures were sent, at the first instance, to an expert it does not appear that anybody contended that he was not a proper.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ram Krishna Sharma, J.

1. This Rule arises at the instance of tenant defendant in the Court below in connection with Suit No. 4337 of 1978. Some documents containing disputed signatures (being Exhibits A 103-A 105) were sent for comparison of the same with some specimen signature of the person concerned. The expert took necessary steps to examine them and sent his report in a sealed cover along with the enlarged photographs of the signatures etc. The learned Court On opening the cover found that after comparison the expert could not form any definite opinion. Thereupon, the defendant-petitioner filed an application before the learned Judge, Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta, for referring the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures to a forensic expert at his own cost. After considering the application the learned Court below rejected the same. Being aggrieved by that order dated 24-4-1981, the present Rule was obtained.

2. Appearing before me Mr. Ganguly contends that this time the signatures should be sent to a greater and better expert so his petition should have been allowed. When the signatures were sent, at the first instance, to an expert it does not appear that anybody contended that he was not a proper authority to execute the work assigned to him. Only when he gave his opinion, that he was not definite then the demand for greater and better authority arose. It is not known who is the greater and better authority and in any case the question of greatness in this field cannot be measured by a layman. It is not necessary that signatures should be sent for comparison until a definite opinion is received from some expert or other. The learned Court below could decide the question of authenticity of the signature on the basis of oral evidence and in accordance with law which gives the Judge power to compare the signature himself. Justice is older than experts. When the experts were not there, on the face of the earth, justice was being meted out. Therefore, justice does not rely solely upon the opinion of the expert and even if experts are unable to give a definite opinion, justice must exercise itself and come to a conclusion and give a definite finding. I have no doubt that the learned Court below will exercise its discretion and its intelligence in coming to a conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

3. With this observation I discharge this rule without any order as to costs.

4. Let the records go down as early as possible.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //