ARTI RAMESH KULKARNI Vs. RAMESH U KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions involve common facts and raise a common question of law with regard to the stage at which a Court can in the exercise of power under section 73 of the indian Evidence Act call upon the accused to give his specimen signature or handwriting and refer it for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The said question arose pursuant to the applications filed by the petitioner complainant in private complaints filed by her against Respondent No. 1, who is her husband, in which she made applications to the trial Court to obtain her signature in the handwriting of the accused and the contents of the disputed letters in his handwriting for sending to the Additional Chief State Examiner of Documents, cid, Bombay, for his opinion. Few facts which led to the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner-wife had purchased shares of different companies jointly in her name and in the name of her husband. Her name stood first in all shares while the name of the respondent-accused stood second as a joint shareholder. As the name of the petitioner stood first in share certificates she used to get dividends from the companies. It is alleged that subsequently the husband made applications to the different companies in the name of the petitioner forging her signature on the said applications requesting the companies for transposing his name first on all the share certificates in place of the names of the petitioner. As a result of this Accused received dividends on those shares. When the petitioner discovered this she filed Criminal cases Nos. 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130 all of the year 1984 in the Court of the JMFC, 1st Court, nasik. The said complaints are pending for trial in the said Court.

(3.) IN the aforesaid complaints process was issued to the respondent-accused and the evidence was being led belore charge in all the matters. After the evidence of some of the company officials was recorded, the petitioner made applications in the above cases with a request to obtain the specimen signature and writing of the petitioner herself as well as that of the respondent No. 1-accused and refer them to the government handwriting expert along with the disputed signature and writing and obtain the expert s opinion for the purpose of comparison ultimately by the Court under section 73 of the indian Evidence Act. The said applications were contested on behalf of the respondent-accused.