9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (2) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck iron sheets worth ₹ 17,701,91 were despatched by Hindustan Steel Plant from Munda near Bhilai to M/s. Shiv Rattan Mohatta at Bikaner in Wagon No. 5EKG 4075. The Railway receipt in respect of this consignment was sent to M/s. Shiv Rattan Mohatta through the State Bank of Bikaner and M/s. Shiv Rattan Mohatta took delivery of the Railway Receipt against payment to the Bank. The consignment, however, did not reach Bikaner and on enquiries being made, it was found by the Railway authorities that the wagon containing the goods had reached Agra on route Bikaner but at some point of time before it reached Agra, the labels attached to the wagon were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tampered with and changed to Ex-LAR indicating that the wagon was despatched from Lalitpur and its destination was Ludhiana. The result was that wagon, instead of going to Bikaner, was carried to Ludhiana and it reached there on 1st August, 1964. 4. The prosecution case was that round about this time, one person styling himself as Umedi Lal, resident of Agra, approached a firm called M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. which was carrying on business as dealers in iro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant who was at the material time employed as a Guard in the Northern Railway. Since Joginder Lal and Ram Nath refused to purchase the iron sheets, Umedi Lal removed the same in three carte and passed a receipt in respect of the same in favour of M/s. Jindal Khamka & Co. The prosecution case was that at this time also Umedi Lal was accompanied by three or four persons who included the appellant. 5. It appears that since M/s. Shiv Rattan Mohatta did not receive delivery of the iron sheets consigned to them in Wagon No. SEKG 40765, they lodged a claim with the Railway Administration and this led to enquiries being made by the Railway Administration. Ultimately, the Railway Administration filed a first information report with the Special Police Establishment, Ambala Branch and following upon the first information report, the police started investigation. During the course of investigation, the police entertained suspicion against the appellant and they obtained from the appellant specimen handwritings PW 27/37 to PW 27/57 for the purpose of comparing them with the handwriting on the railway Receipt Ex. PW 10/A which was a forged document. The police also requested the railway a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Receipt at Banmore Station. It is indeed difficult to see how the appellant, who was a small employees in the Railway Administration, could have possibly come into possession of the blank Railway Receipt from Banmore Station which was not within his jurisdiction at any time. It is true that B. Lal, the handwriting expert, deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt Ex. PW 10A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwritings Ex. PW 27/37 to 27/57, that is the appellant, but 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 then 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 corrshoration. 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 1957CriLJ559 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspire any confidence at all. In the first place, it is difficult to see whey the appellant should have gone with Umedi Lal to Ludhiana for the purpose of selling the iron sheets. The appellant was a mere railway Guard and even if it be assumed for the purpose of argument that his service were utilised for the purpose of forging the railway receipt Ex. PQ 10/A, there is no reason why he should have been persuaded to accompany Umedi Lal to Ludhiana. It is true that the appellant was on leave from 1st August, 1964 to 16th August, 1964 but from that circumstance, it does not follow that he had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of the iron sheets. Even according to the prosecution, the appellant was in Ludhiana only on 2nd August 1964 and that would not necessitate the appellant taking such a long leave from 1st August, 1964 to 16th August, 1964. The leave taken by the appellant from 1st August, 1964 to 16th August, 1964 would not necessarily support the inference that the appellant was present in Ludhiana on 2nd August, 1964. The appellant might have taken this long leave for some other purpose. Moreover, it may be noted that Joginder Lal could not identify the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulate but we cannot help feeling that M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. were not absolutely innocent in so far as this transaction is concerned. Umedi Lal was a stranger to both Joginder Lal and Ram Nath and yet, according to the prosecution case, Umedi Lal handed over the forged Railway Receipt PW 10/A to Joginder Lal for the purpose of taking delivery of the goods without insisting on payment and even without settling the bargain. The Railway Receipt PW 10/A was found to be defective by Teja Singh Sodhi, Goods Clerk on 2nd August, 1964 and yet on the next day, strangely enough, he was, for same inexplicable reasons, persuaded to accept the same Railway Receipt and delivered the iron sheets against it at the instance of Bhoja Ram, who was a person frequently acting on behalf of M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. Then again, Joginder Lal and Ram Nath are supposed to have returned the iron sheets to Umedi Lal because some broker told them that they should insist on the production of a bill of purchase by Umedi Lal which Umedi Lal was unable to do. This also appears to be a rather disingenuous story made up by Joginder Lal and Ram Nath for the purpose of showing as if the iron sheets did not remain wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
