Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: forging of valuable security in R.Chandrasekaran vs / on 21 December, 2012Matching Fragments
20. Though, it is desirable and prudent to get the expert opinion on the signatures and handwritings, yet the power to compare the signatures and writing by the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act is always vested with the Court. In the case in hand, the trial Court had relied on the testimony of depositor and held that the accused has forged the documents in the name of the depositor. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the said finding, in view of the impeccable quality of the P.W-4 Mr.M.Ganapathi's evidence and on comparing the admitted signatures of P.W-4 with the signature of the depositor on the reverse of the FD receipt (Ex.P.4) and in the Pro-note (Ex.P.14), it is clear to the naked eyes they are forged. Thus, the charge of forging valuable security to attract offence under section 467 of I.P.C (2 counts) and use of these two forged _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis valuable securities as genuine which is offence punishable under Section 467 r/w 471 of I.P.C (2 counts) also held to be proved.