STATE OF GUJARAT versus VINAYA CHANDRA CHHOTA LAL PATNI

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 05-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
VINAYA CHANDRA CHHOTA LAL PATNI 
September 5, 1966. 
[V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.j 
Crilninal Trial-Complainant's staternent--Corroboration with docu-
n1ents, statenz.ents of accused in other cases-Admissibility-Harzdwriting 
c:xpert, examination, if essential. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), s. 45-Handwriting Expert, 
evidence, if conclusive. 
The respondent was charged under s. 408 l.P.C. for misappropriating 
the. funds of his employer. The only witness to prove the entries and sig· 
natures on the cheques was the complainant (employer) and corroboration 
of his statement was sought from four documentS two of which were said 
to be handed over to the complainant by the respondent when the respon-
dent's conduct was found out. 
The other two documents were the. respon-
dent's statement as an. ·accused ln a criminal case and an application given 
by the respondent in another case. 
Tho trial court convicted the respon· 
dent. 
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent holding that ( i) 
it was unsafe to rely on the statement of the complainant alone, (ii) the 
documents were inadmissible in evidence, and (iii) it was for the prMecu-
tion to example a handwriting expert to prove the disputed handwriting. 
In appeal by the State. 
HELD : The appeal must be allowed. 
(i) The complainant was competent to speak about entries 
and sig-
natures~ as the respondent had been h:s employee for a number of years. 
He had many an occasion to see the respondent write and sign. 
[25 l 
D-E] 
(ii) The documents were admissible in evidence. 
The documents han.ded over by the respondent to the complainant and 
the statement of the respondent provide strong corroboration to the state-
ment of the complainant. In fact the admission in the document together 
with the statement could also be treated as a confession of the respondent 
cashing the cheques, the subject matter of the charge in this case. 
The statements of the respondent in the criminal case and in the appli-
cation in another case were adm'.ssible in evidence ·to prove his admissions 
with respect to these facts. 
[253 H; 254 Fl 
(iii) It was not essential that handwriting expert must be examined in a 
case to prove or d'sprove the disputed writing. 
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 fin.ding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the 
basis of comp·ar.:son, but a Court can itself compare the. writing in order 
to appreciate properly the other evid,ence produced before it in that regard. 
The opinion of an handwriting expert is also relevant in view of s. 4S of 
the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. The sole. evidence of a 
handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recordini;? a definite finding 
!1bout the writing being of a certain person or not. (251 G. HJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
: Criminal Appeal No . 
. n of 1964. 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967] I S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 18, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 
527 of 1963. 
A.S.R. Chari, M. V. Goswami A"ID B. R. G. K. Achar, for the 
appellant. 
· 
A 
V. S. Nayyar, AND H. M. Chenoy, for the respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ragbubar Dayal, J. This appeal, by special leave, is by the 
State of Gujarat against the order of the Gujarat High Coun 
acquitting the respondent of the offence under s. 408 I.P.C. 
The respondent was an employee of Nalinkant P.W. l, sole 
proprietor of Arora Trading Company, in 1959. 
He was in ser-
vice from 1954. 
It was his duty to withdraw moneys from the Union 
Bank of India Ltd., with which Nalinkant had an account. Nalin-
kant used to leave his cheque book with a few blank signed cheques 
with the respondent when he had to go out of Ahmedabad, the place 
of business. The prosecution case is that the respondent took 
advantage of such blank cheques, filled them up and cashed them 
from the Bank and misappropriated the amounts so received. He 
made no entries about such receipts in the petty cash book maintain-
ed by the firm. 
Nalinkant was the only witness to prove that the relevant 
entries in the cheques and the signatures at the back of the cheques 
in token of having received the amounts from the Bank were of the 
respondent. C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.