Ajai Lamba, J. - (1.) THE application prays for leave to appeal against acquittal. Acquittal has been recorded vide judgment dated 26.9.2007 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar. The offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant -petitioner are under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In nut shell, the prosecution was required to prove forgery of signatures of Suraj Prakash.
(2.) WHILE the prosecution relied on the statement of CW -3 Fateh Chand, the defendant relied on the statement of DW -5 Sh. Arvind Sood. Cw -3 Fateh Chand admitted that photographs of questioned and standard signatures were not taken by him. He did not visit the bank to obtain photographs of standard signatures of Suraj Prakash. He even stated that he did not know whether the counsel took photographs from the bank or he took photographs from photostat copies of bank documents.
(3.) TO the contrary DW -5 Arvind Sood has been examined as an expert witness, who went to the concerned bank after taking permission from the Court, obtained photographs of admitted signatures of Suraj Prakash on the bank documents, for comparison with disputed signatures on the Will. He also inspected the identity card of Suraj Prakash and on the basis of these relevant documents proved his opinion report finding the signatures, standard and questioned, from the common author.;