IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4478/2016 BETWEEN SRI SIRAJULLA S/O M.G.MEHABOOB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D.NO.59, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE KESARE, RAJENDRANAGAR MYSURU – 570 007 (BY SRI V. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADV.) AND STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560001 (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2016 IN CRL.R.P.NO.294/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL S.J., MYSURU AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2015 IN C.C.NO.540/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL I.C.J., MYSURU AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THIS PETITION ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has sought to quash the impugned order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Revision Petition No.294/2015 and the order passed by the III Additional First Civil Judge, and JMFC, at Mysuru, dated 18.11.2015 in C.C.No.540/2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for the respondent.
3. The petitioner herein is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
4. The accusation against the petitioner is that the petitioner forged a sale agreement purported to have been executed by the deceased Channappa – Complainant and on the strength of the said forged document, laid a claim over the immovable properties belonging to the complainant, in O.S.No.182/2014.
5. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer secured the original agreement of sale produced by the accused before the Civil Court in O.S.No.182/2014 and forwarded the same to FSL examination for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures of the complainant subscribed in his pension records. On examining both the records, FSL issued a report, based on which, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the above offences.
6. During trial, petitioner moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking to reject the F.S.L. report dated 20.09.2012 and prayed for issuance of fresh Commission to examine the signatures found on the vakalathnama of the deceased Channappa filed by him in O.S.No.182/2014 with that of disputed signatures. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. The petitioner challenged the said order before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.R.P.No.294/2015. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 02.01.2016, dismissed the same thereby, confirming the order passed by the trial Court, mainly on the ground that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and the same is not amenable for revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report obtained from the FSL is inadmissible in evidence. The complainant was very much alive as on the date of forwarding the signatures to the handwriting expert. Under the said circumstance, the Investigating Officer should have either collected the specimen signatures of the complainant or else, the recent signatures found on the vakalathnama of the complainant in O.S.No.182/2014, ought to have been subjected for examination; instead, the Investigating Officer has forwarded the pension records of the complainant which contained the signatures subscribed by him more than eight years ago, as a result, the petitioner is subjected to grave injustice and legal injury.
8. Considered the submissions and examined the records. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the signatures found in his pension papers do not bear his true signatures. These signatures have come into existence at an undisputed point of time. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the time gap between the signatures subscribed by the complainant in his pension document and the alleged document – agreement of sale said to be executed by him, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the signatures found in his pension papers. The handwriting expert having compared the disputed signatures on the sale agreement with the undisputed signatures found on the pension papers of the complainant, no fault could be found with the course adopted by the Investigating Officer. That apart, FSL report secured by the Investigating Officer is merely an expert opinion and not conclusive evidence. It is required to be proved in accordance with law and opportunity will be available to the petitioner to challenge the report and to rebut the said opinion by producing convincing evidence before the Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard.
9. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has not obtained the prior permission of the Civil Court to forward the sale agreement for examination by the FSL authority also does not merit acceptance. Even assuming that such a permission is not obtained, the same does not vitiate the report obtained by the investigating officer. The evidence collected even through illegal means could be relied upon provided it is relevant to prove the fact in issue. As a result, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner disputing the validity of the expert evidence obtained by the prosecution. Consequently, the prayer made by the petitioner to eschew the evidence and to issue fresh Commission to examine the disputed document cannot be allowed and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj