Premier Forensic Science Institute is going to start certificate course in investigation of arson (Fire) case for fire officers, forensic scientist, insurance surveyor, Police officers.

Archives for Evidence of Dr. S.C. Mittal (Retired PSO CFSL / CBI)

Dr S C Mittal, CBI, the forensic science expert gave very good analysis on Zee TV

Add. District Judge appreciates the evidence of Dr. S.C. Mittal (Retired PSO, CFSL/CBI)

In case suit no. S23/07 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Suraj Bhan Shri Pitamber Dutt Additional District Judge Tis Hazari courts, Delhi, in his final judgement has not only accepted but appreciated the Evidence of Dr. S.C Mittal and observed:
‘No incriminating material has been come out during his cross examination and the said witness has successfully passed the ACID TEST of cross examination’.

36) The defendant has also examined Dr. SC Mittal, handwriting as DW-4 who has examined the signature over the counter foil of the rent receipts Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/67 and compared the same with the Admitted Signatures of the defendant and submitted his report Ex. DW4/A. The said expert has opined that the Questioned Signatures marked Q1 to Q34, Q34 to Q36 to Q65 are forged signatures and they are not written by the same persons who wrote the Admitted Signatures marked A1 to A22 attributed to Suraj Bhan. The said witness has been extensively cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff but he has reiterated his opinion expressed by him vide his report Ex. PW4/A.

London High Court accepts the evidence of Dr. S C Mittal

Justice Newey, High Court of London Chancery Division in Case No. 5436 of 2002 between Kalvinder Singh Sandhu (Applicant) and Dr. Sukhvender Kaur (Respondent) has accepted evidence of Dr. S C Mittal and in his Judgment he writes:

“Dr Subhash Mittal, a forensic document examiner called on behalf of Dr Kaur, expressed the view that the fluorescence of documents at issue tends to confirm that they are of the dates attributed to them. Mr Gupta disputed the value of fluorescence evidence in the present context, but I do not think I can dismiss Dr Mittal’s views as clearly without foundation; and”
“With a degree of hesitation, I have ultimately concluded that Mr Sandhu’s complaints in respect of the witness statement of 1 December 2009 have not been made out to the relevant standard. Mr Sandhu is alleging very serious misconduct: the dishonest concoction of a large number of documents. In the end, I do not think the evidence is strong enough to prove such misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, I cannot feel sure that Mr Sandhu’s complaints are well-founded.”

Evidence of Dr. S C Mittal accepted and appreciated by the Justice.

Case No: 5436 of 2002, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION, IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986, AND IN THE MATTER OF PALMIER PLC (IN LIQUIDATION)

[Seal of Royal Courts of Justice]

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2679 (Ch)

Case No: 5436 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986

AND IN THE MATTER OF PALMIER PLC (IN LIQUIDATION)

 

Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice,

7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane,

London EC4A 1NL

 

Date: 04/10/2012

 

Before :

MR JUSTICE NEWEY

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Between :

 

 

KALVINDER SINGH SANDHU

Applicant

 

– and –

 

DR SUKHVENDER KAUR

Respondent

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Mr Ian Smith (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) for the Applicant

Mr Rupert Butler (instructed initially by Winckworth Sherwood LLP, later by ieLaw) for the Respondent

 

Hearing dates: 20-22 & 26-28 March and 18, 20, 23 & 24 July 2012

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

………………………..

i)                    disclosed in May 2010. While the text of the letter has not changed, the signatures can be seen to be different.

  1. Taken together, there is considerable force in these points. On the other hand:

i)                    While he said that he had been kept informed as to the company’s affairs by Colonel Singh, Mr Charanjit Singh said that did not think he had attended any Wimpy board meetings after April 2000, when his son had an accident. It is also potentially relevant that he has himself been concerned in Indian legal proceedings relating to Wimpy for some years;

ii)                  Tremor can arise not only from ageing but from illness or medication; as Mr Gupta accepted, antidepressant drugs, in particular, may impair some people’s muscular coordination. As a result, the extent to which a person’s signatures show signs of tremor may decrease as well as increase over time (if e.g. the person recovers from an illness or ceases to take a medication). That means that a signature showing signs of tremor will not necessarily post-date one that is free of tremor; in fact, Mr Gupta noted that signatures of Mr Sidhu dating from 2010 and 2012 have shown a lesser degree of tremor than earlier signatures. In the present case, there is evidence that Mr Sidhu was taking drugs for both hypertension and, perhaps more significantly, depression in the years after 1999. It is conceivable that the tremor Mr Gupta observed in the signatures at issue could be attributable to Mr Sidhu’s health and/or treatment. Mr Gupta’s evidence is also weakened slightly – through no fault of his own – by the fact that he did not have available to him samples of Mr Sidhu’s signature dating from 2003 or 2004;

iii)                Dr Subhash Mittal, a forensic document examiner called on behalf of Dr Kaur, expressed the view that the fluorescence of documents at issue tends to confirm that they are of the dates attributed to them. Mr Gupta disputed the value of fluorescence evidence in the present context, but I do not think I can dismiss Dr Mittal’s views as clearly without foundation; and

iv)                As was pointed out by Mr Rupert Butler, who appeared for Dr Kaur, it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which two copies of the letter of 5 September 2001 might have been signed at the time.

  1. With a degree of hesitation, I have ultimately concluded that Mr Sandhu’s complaints in respect of the witness statement of 1 December 2009 have not been made out to the relevant standard. Mr Sandhu is alleging very serious misconduct: the dishonest concoction of a large number of documents. In the end, I do not think the evidence is strong enough to prove such misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, I cannot feel sure that Mr Sandhu’s complaints are well-founded.

The order of 8 December 2009 (Allegation 12)

  1. The final allegation against Dr Kaur is of failure to comply with the undertaking she gave to the Court on 8 December 2009. The essential complaint is that original documents were not made available for inspection in accordance with the undertaking.
(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-51659299-1', 'pfsi.in'); ga('send', 'pageview');