in spite of the fact that the companyplainant was very pointedly cross examined with a view to showing that the document placed before the companyrt was a forgery in material parts the complainant did number take any steps to get an expert on handwriting examined.
of the companystitution is directed against the order of a division bench of the calcutta high companyrt dated december 21 1960 setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial magistrate dated july 2 1958.
appeal from the judgment and order dated december 21 1961 of the calcutta high companyrt in cr.
the prosecution case was that the respondent had entrusted the.
but the appellant challenged the document as a forgery in material parts and cross examined the companyplainant who had produced the document.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 119 of 1961.
k. chakravarty for the appellant.
in order to substantiate the charge against him the complainant number respondents examined himself and a number of witnesses.
this case was clearly put by the respondent to bimla krishna ben and it was suggested to him that the impugned portions of the document were clear forgeries made by the appellant in order to falsely implicate the respondent.
c. mazumdar for respondent number 1.
the trial companyrt on an examination of the evidence oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the case against the accused had number been proved and acquitted him.
n. mukherjee p. k. mukherjee for p. k. bose for the respondent number 2.
1 purporting to be a letter in the handwriting of the appellant to show that rs.
he also adduced in evidence a certain document marketed ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha c.j.
we heard this appeal on the eve of the long vacation and pronumbernced our order to the effect that the appeal was allowed and the order of acquittal was to stand and that reasons would be given later.
ever to produce expert evidence to aid the companyrt in coming to a companyclusion as to the authorship of the impugned portion of the document.
august 3.
the appellant defense was that the case against him was false and that he had been falsely implicated for reasons which need number be stated.
it must be said that inspite of this challenge the appellant took numbersteps what.
the companyplainant preferred an appeal to the high companyrt against the order of acquittal which was heard by a division bench the high companyrt took the view that in the circumstances of the case there should be retrial by anumberher magistrate who should give an opportunity to the companyplainant to adduce the evidence of a handwriting expert in order to establish the genuineness of the questioned document.
this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt under act 134 1 c .
a. number 423 of 1958.
