Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the alleged two cheques which were stolen/misplaced from the possession of the applicant Company were reported to be lost by an employee of the applicant Company, namely-Raghuvir Prasad, who reported about the lost cheques to the concerned police station but the veracity of the aforesaid report was denied by police vide letter dated 02.12.2022, wherein it has been specifically stated that no such G.D. Entry was found in the concerned police station about the report for lost cheques. He further submitted that even the police has denied the report regarding lost cheques, thus, it appears that the alleged cheques were handed over to the complainant with the connivance of an employee of the applicant Company only with the intention to misappropriate the alleged cheques.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the complainant somehow got handover to the two blank cheques of the company with the connivance of an employee of the applicants' Company and thereafter, conspired to extract the money from the company illegally as he also knew that the hotel property is being sold. The complainant in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and evil design, presented the aforesaid lost two cheques before the State Bank of India, S.G.P.G.I. Branch, Lucknow on 24.06.2021 with forged signature of the applicant no.2 and filling the self imagined amount of Rs.5 Crores in each cheque and entered the same date as 24.06.2021 on the aforesaid two cheques.

23. It is further observed that this Court is not the handwriting expert but prima facie on detail examination and comparison of the respective signature samples, which were present on the sale deed executed by the applicant No.2 in respect of sale of Hotel and the signatures which were present on the two lost cheques, the cardinal principles of identification of signatures and on comparing the writing habits, general and personal characteristics of both the sets of signature samples and upon close scrutiny of the nature of the writing of the comparative signatures reveals that the writing pertains to a good skilled writer capable of making forceful and crisp strokes in the writing of complete signatures with no hesitation or clumsiness in stroke making. The writing is found to be fluently and smoothly written in normal and natural flow of running signatures motion without any care of caution.

24. It is further observed that there are dissimilarities in the signatures and sufficient amount of dissimilarity is found. Cumulative consideration of all the dissimilarities in the writing habits between the signature samples, which lead to a conclusion that the person who did the signature on the sale deed executed in respect of sale of hotel and the signature which was present on the lost two cheques are not the same person, who did the specimen signatures. This fact has also been confirmed by a forensic expert, whose report is annexed as Annexure No.21 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.