How to prove a forged signature?
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 23 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
I suspect that the receipt signature in the summons issued to the labourer in "138 case" is forged. As per court procedure, who should certify that the signature is forgery?
livingston_k
(Expert) 24 November 2011
forensic department- ask for forensic to verify the signature
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 24 November 2011
You mean the postal acknowledgement?
Who is labourer?
Give more details.
Amit Minocha
(Expert) 24 November 2011
even if signatures were forged, by his appearance he can get the BW/NBW if issued cancelled, and then contest the case. So better concentrate on it then on authenticity of signatures as the dispute is not of legal notice receiving but of Court Summons. Though it is not to justify that forging signs on summons is not serious but since main issue is of 138 and it is a bailable offence, the Court may not bee much keen to go into said controversy unless a loud voice and applications are being made by you repeatedly on this issue.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 24 November 2011
Dear Arunagiri Sir,I had posted the complete details under the head "138 case" in Criminal Law.By labourer, I mean he is a daily wage earner. He has not acknowledged receipt of the summons, but documentary evidence shows that "as if he had acknowledged receipt"
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Well, it is a matter of later decision.
Right now he should appear and defend the case, simultaneouly file for forging court records.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Mr.Shonee Kapoor has again hit the bull eye very intelligently.It seems his day.I am not finding any room to enter in.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 26 November 2011
It may be the case, some body else in the family would have received the summons.
You can very the records, as to who had received the summons.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 26 November 2011
None of the family members had acknowledged receipt.This was verified and confirmed.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 26 November 2011
once you appear in the case the signatures were forged or not is history. Even if you prove the signatures were forged what you will achieve since you have already got the knowledge of the case and appeared.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 26 November 2011
Forging the signature can not be a ground for defense in the 138 case.
But, if you can prove the receipt is forged, the court will initiate action for perjury. For this you have to file a petition u/s 340 cr.p.c to the same court.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 27 November 2011
As explained by me in my posting "138 case", we were forced to attend court through an Arrest warrant. If we had received the summons, we would have appeared before the chit company and resolved the issue without going to court, unnecessarily wasting the precious time of both the Court and the Worker. On reporting to Court, we found another complication of forgery, which according to Shri.Arunagiri extends to 340.However our main case is 138, the amount being meager and wish to settle the amount immediately, but not without going into the aspect of forgery.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 27 November 2011
First you were telling about forged signatures of summons and now some thing else.
Please note that forensic examination is time consuming and costly so if the amount if cheque is big than only try that route.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 28 November 2011
Mr. JSDN, you have not gone through my postings in "138 case" under the title "Criminal Law". You had stated that "Even if you prove the signatures were forged what you will achieve" So Mr.JSDN you mean to say that forgery is not a crime, and I should be humbled by forgery and the criminal in forgery should go scotfree! In your subsequent posting you had mentioned that " First you were telling about forged signatures of summons and now some thing else." Mr.JSDN, I have been maintaining the same but it's you who had construed it as "something else". Please let me know as to what that " something else" means to clarify your doubts. And you say that "Please note that forensic examination is time consuming and costly so if the amount if cheque is big than only try that route." Whether big or small, Law is law, and "time consuming" is not my problem and "costly" is also not my factor. The basics are wrong, the forged summons had eloborated into an Arrest warrant, which was implemented by the police strategically.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 28 November 2011
If you want to settle the matter inform the court. If the party is interested in settling the issue, the court will record your statements, after settlement, and will close the case.
At any cost you have to appear before the court for these proceedings.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 28 November 2011
Case is going on. A blank cheque consists of two parts (1) The signature of the issuer which is real. (2)The amount written in words and figures are the hands of the receiver which is false.
The receiver can manipulate his book of accounts to his whims and fancies, being a private company. In such a scenario, how best can you deal a case, part real and part fraud in a single instrument. I am aware that I am jumping from my original summons issue to a cheque defect.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 29 November 2011
I am told that the signature on the cheque alone is enough, irrespective of the fact of other particulars contained in the cheque, as per Supreme Court orders.Kindly let me know if I had got the news right?
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 29 November 2011
Based on the facts only, I can give further opinion.
J.Peter Rajamanickam
(Querist) 29 November 2011
Dear Shri.Arunagiri,
The facts may vary depending upon each case. What are the guidance proclaimed by the Supreme Court with regards to a signed blank cheque?
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 25 December 2011
Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
www.indiankanoon.org/doc/150051/
7 May 2010 – [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 407 of 2006] Rangappa ... Appellant Versus. Sri Mohan ... Respondent JUDGMENT. K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I.. 1. ...
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 25 December 2011
1 )Once you admit the signature of cheque THAN further entries you can not dispute.And when you want to dispute about cheque you have to prove how its custody of has gone to the holder.
2) Regarding signature on summons , once you have appeared it has become irrelevant.
Now SC has issued strict guidelines in such matters but it is for future.
3) I maintain the power of defense is immense so if you are not bothered about cost and time and than you can file criminal complaint against the complaint but it will not stand on forged signatures alone you will have to add other circumstances also one of them is complainant did not try to serve regular summons and with ulterior motives applied for warrant.
THERE IS MANY MANY SUCH TACTICS WHICH YOU CAN NOT KNOW ALL THROUGH PUBLIC WEB SITES.
Guest
(Expert) 25 December 2011
Dear Mr. Peter,
On the query of Shri Arunagiri in response to your brief question, you mentioned that you had posted the complete details under the head "138 case." Subsequently, you had to post long clarifications, but still with partial facts.
BUT still you have not stated what actually is the relationship of a labourer/ daily wage earner with the 138 case and what relations a private company/ chit fund company is having, as receiver expected to be manipulating his book of accounts to his whims and fancies?
In fact, frankly speaking, you have yourself invited varied and contradictory replies from experts by stating the problem in a very delinked manner, etc.
So, to avoid any more controversy, it will be better if you specify the problem to the point in precise manner by stating what actually was the case and how and what inter-relationship you, the labourer, the chit cund company had, and who issued the notice under 138 to whom and why?
YOU CANNOT EXPECT THE EXPERTS TO PRESUME WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR MIND AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE YOU SEEK A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.
