Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal by special leave arose from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State of Gujarat challenged the acquittal. The respondent was an employee of Nalinkant P.W. 1, sole proprietor of Arora Trading Company, from 1954, and in 1959 his duty was to withdraw moneys from the Union Bank of India Ltd. Nalinkant used to leave his cheque book with a few blank signed cheques with the respondent when he had to go out of Ahmedabad. The prosecution alleged that the respondent took advantage of such blank cheques, filled them up, cashed them from the bank, and misappropriated the amounts without making entries in the petty cash book. Nalinkant was the only witness to prove that the relevant entries and signatures on the cheques were in the respondent's handwriting. Corroboration was sought from four documents: two documents said to have been handed over to Nalinkant by the respondent when his conduct was found out on December 14, 1959, and the other two documents being the respondent's statement as an accused in a criminal case and an application given by him in another criminal case. The respondent admitted his employment and duty to withdraw moneys but denied filling in the cheques, withdrawing moneys, and misappropriating the amounts. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 408 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him, holding that it was unsafe to rely on the statement of the complainant alone, that the documents were inadmissible, and that it was for the prosecution to examine a handwriting expert. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court erred in rejecting the complainant's testimony as unsafe, whether the four documents were admissible, and whether examination of a handwriting expert was essential. The State argued that the High Court was wrong in holding the documents inadmissible and in requiring a handwriting expert, as handwriting could be proved by other means and the complainant was competent to speak about the respondent's handwriting. The respondent denied the relevant allegations. The Supreme Court held that the complainant was competent to speak about the entries and signatures because the respondent had been his employee for a number of years and he had many occasions to see him write and sign. The High Court gave no reason for differing from the trial court's credibility assessment. The Court further held that a court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding merely on the basis of comparison, but the court can itself compare writings to appreciate other evidence. The opinion of a handwriting expert is relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act but is not conclusive, and the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for a definite finding. Therefore, it was not essential to examine a handwriting expert. On the documents, the Court held that the slip on which the respondent noted misappropriated amounts, when read with the complainant's statement about the circumstances, made out a confession; the written statement given by the respondent on December 14, 1959 was voluntary and admissible as an extra-judicial confession and admission, and the vagueness was explained by the complainant's testimony and the first document. The respondent's statements in other criminal cases were also admissible to prove admissions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the conviction by the trial court. The decision favored the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Proof of Handwriting - Court Competent to Compare Writings - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The respondent was charged under Section 408 IPC with misappropriating funds by filling blank signed cheques; the only witness to prove handwriting and signatures was the employer complainant. The trial court had compared disputed writings with proved writings. Held that a court is competent to compare disputed writing with admitted or proved writings, and it is not essential to examine a handwriting expert; expert opinion under Section 45 is relevant but not conclusive, and sole expert evidence is normally insufficient. B) Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Reliability of Complainant Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 408 - High Court acquitted respondent holding it unsafe to rely on complainant alone. Held that complainant was competent to speak about entries and signatures as respondent had been his employee for years and had many occasions to see him write and sign; mere expression that it is not safe to rely on evidence alone is not sufficient ground to differ from trial court's credibility finding when no reason given. C) Evidence Law - Admissibility of Documents - Extra-Judicial Confession and Admissions - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Four documents offered as corroboration included a slip listing misappropriated amounts and a statement written by respondent, plus respondent's statements as accused in other cases. Held that documents handed over by respondent and his statements were admissible; the slip together with complainant's statement made out a confession, and the statement written by respondent was admissible as extra-judicial confession and admission; vagueness explained by complainant's testimony and first document.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in holding the complainant's evidence unsafe to rely upon without handwriting expert; whether the four documents were inadmissible in evidence; whether it was essential for prosecution to examine a handwriting expert to prove disputed handwriting.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the High Court's acquittal order was set aside and the trial court's conviction under Section 408 IPC was restored. The Supreme Court held that the complainant's evidence, when believed, was sufficient to establish the offence; the four documents were admissible; and it was not essential to examine a handwriting expert.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A court is competent to compare disputed writing with admitted or proved writings
- handwriting expert opinion is relevant but not conclusive
- sole evidence of handwriting expert is not sufficient
- it is not essential to examine handwriting expert
- complainant's testimony about employee's handwriting is competent
- documents including extra-judicial confession and admissions are admissible
- mere expression that it is unsafe to rely on complainant alone is not sufficient ground to reject testimony
