|
Hon’ble
Additional District Judge Delhi, Sh. Gurdeep
Kumar in his Judgment (M/S Hindustan Roller
Supply Co_ Vs_ Sh. Surendra Pratap Singh)
Says : “ I also agree with P.W.
V.C. Misra that the defendant while writing has
tried to disguise his specimen signature “____”
the report given by P.W. V.C. Misra is found to
be based on proper and scientific approach. ”
Hon’ble Additional District Judge Delhi, Sh.
A.K. Garg in his Judgment (Sh. Talukdar Singh
vs. Sh.Gulab Singh)
Says :
“ Sh. Misra proved his report Ex DW3/1 and
expressed the opinion that the disputed
signature Q-1 to Q-6 had been forged by means of
tracing the signature from the original model
signatures available of the ________ signatory.
I have carefully studied the report of the
handwriting expert and in my opinion the
conclusion of DW3 Sh. V.C. Misra is more sound
and supported by cogent reasons as for as the
signatures Q-1 to Q6 are concerned. Sh. Misra
prepared the transparency Ex DW-3/2 of the
signatures Q-5 and he has rightly stated when
this transparency is placed over the other
signatures, it exactly fit on the same. Sh.
Misra is also right when he says that
indentation marks were noticed under the
questioned signature. ” |
V.
C. Misra, Questioned Document and Handwriting & Finger Print Expert
(Forensic Expert, India)
