Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two promissory notes relied upon by the complainant are forged and fabricated documents also deserves rejection. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly held that the petitioner did not take any steps to substantiate this allegation. Apart from a bare suggestion put to the complainant in cross-examination - which was specifically denied by her - no effort was made by the petitioner to seek forensic examination of the disputed signatures or to summon the attesting witnesses of the said promissory notes to establish his defence of forgery. Suggestions, by themselves, have no evidentiary value, and in the absence of any corroborative proof, such a plea cannot stand. On the contrary, the complainant‟s testimony regarding execution of the promissory notes remained unshaken in cross-examination. Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the concurrent finding that the petitioner failed to prove that the promissory notes were fabricated, and the same were rightly relied upon as evidence of acknowledgment of liability.