Magan Bihari Lal vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 1977
15. Of course, it is not safe to base the
conviction solely on the evidence of the
handwriting expert. As held by the Supreme
Court in Magan Bihari Lal v State of Punjab
that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs Anil Kumar And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 July, 1999
11. Further, the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondents that the applicant will get an opportunity to
submit his defence in the departmental inquiry, the said
submissions is not tenable in light of the judgments
passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case
of Anil Kumar (supra) and subsequent judgment passed
by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.57/2023) 40
No.1835/2024 and connected matters, vide common
oral order dated 19.9.2024 in the matter of Union of
India and others vs. Priyanshu Raj Rajeshwar
Prasad Singh even otherwise as noted herein above,
now it is a settled proposition of law that charge
Memorandum issued against the candidate/employee
solely based on opinion of handwriting expert of the
CFSL, that too without any corroborative evidence, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
S.P.S.Rathore vs C.B.I & Anr on 23 September, 2016
17. It is, further, well settled in evidence that
handwriting comparison constitutes evidence of
an extremely weak character, and cannot, in any
event, be treated as conclusive. We may reproduce,
in this context, the following passages from the
judgements of the Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore
v CBI (2017) 5 SCC 817 and Padum Kumar v State
of UP (2020) 3 SCC 35:
Union Of India Thr.G.M.Northern ... vs Jagmohan Singh &Amp Ors. on 4 September, 2014
12. Therefore, in the light of the judgments passed by the
Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anil
Kumar (supra), judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Delhi
High Court in Jagmohan (supra) as well as the Order
passed by this Tribunal in OA No.127/2022 dated
4.5.2023 and the discussion made herein above, we are
of the considered view that the respondents have
committed the grave error in issuing the charge sheet
against the applicant solely on the basis of opinion of
the hand writing expert of the CFSL. Thus, the
impugned order/charge memorandum dated 03.02.2020
(Annexure A/1) deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011
In our judgment in Dr.
Sahadeva Singh (supra), we have also
notice the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Limited & another v
Ananta Saha & others (2011) 5 SCC 142,
wherein the Apex Court has held that if the
initial action is not in consonance with
law, all subsequent
proceedings are vitiated."
Ran Vijay Singh And 34 Others vs Union Of India And 6 Others on 16 April, 2018
In this regard, it is apt to mention that this
Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad Bench by considering
the observations and directions issued by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016
in the case of Monu Tomar V/s. UOI & Ors.,
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.57/2023) 25
judgment passed in Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of
Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 1091); judgment passed by
Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ran
Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India as well
as judgments passed by the various Benches of this
Tribunal, including Ahmedabad Bench, held that the
respondents had committed grave error in issuing
the charge sheet against the applicant solely on the
basis of opinion of the handwriting expert as also
denying the contention of the respondents that
applicant would get opportunity to rebut the
allegations in inquiry.
Bhagwan Kaur vs Maharaj Krishan Sharma & Ors on 25 October, 1972
In Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan
Sharma (1973) 4 SCC 46 this Court held as
under:
Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo vs Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat And Others on 9 March, 1954
In Kishore Chandra
Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad
Bhagat (1954) 1 SCC 326 this Court
observed that conclusions based upon
mere comparison of handwriting must
at best be indecisive and yield to the
positive evidence in the case.
S.Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1996
In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance upon S. Gopal
Reddy v State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596,
wherein the Supreme Court held as under:
Ram Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1956
„7. ... we think it would be extremely
hazardous to condemn the
appellant merely on the strength of
opinion evidence of a handwriting
expert. It is now well settled that
expert opinion must always be
received with great caution and
perhaps none so with more caution
than the opinion of a handwriting
expert. There is a profusion of
precedential authority which holds
that it is unsafe to base a conviction
solely on expert opinion without
substantial corroboration. This rule
has been universally acted upon
and it has almost become a rule of
law. It was held by this Court in
Ram Chandra v State of U.P. AIR
1957 SC 381, that it is unsafe to
treat expert handwriting opinion as
sufficient basis for conviction, but it
may be relied upon when supported
by other items of internal and
external evidence.