Syed HASSAN HYDER vs The STATE
The petitioner, formerly the Secretary of the United Provinces Mohajirin Association, was convicted under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fraud and forgery related to the sale of land plots. The prosecution alleged the petitioner induced the complainant to pay for a plot using a forged agreement of sale purportedly executed by an allottee, Saeed Hassan, whose signature was denied. The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872. The petitioner challenged this, arguing the High Court misread the documents and improperly assumed the role of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court noted that while courts are empowered under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 to compare signatures to form an opinion, the reliability of such a comparison depends on accuracy. Given the contention that the High Court misread the documents, the Supreme Court ordered the original records to be produced for its own examination before deciding the petition.
- Is a court empowered to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures to form an opinion under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Should a court rely solely on its own comparison of handwriting without expert assistance?
- Can a conviction based on a court's own comparison of signatures be challenged if the court allegedly misread the documents?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 73, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHNIAN, C. J.-The petitioner; who was at the relevant times working as the Secretary of the United Provinces Mohajirin Association, has been convicted under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months more on each count.
2. The case against him was that in or about the year 1960 he induced the complainant, Shabir Ahmad, to take a plot of land in the Hassan Colony, set up by the above-mentioned Association, on payment of Rs. 1,050. This amount was paid by the complainant by two cheques on the 2nd of May and the 5th of May 1963, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner gave to the complainant an agreement for sale purporting to have been executed in his favour by one, Saeed Hassan, an allottee of plot No. 24. This was also attested by the petitioner before an Oath Commissioner. The complainant was also given an allotment order issued originally in the name of Saeed Hassan, but Plot No. 23 was shown therein instead of Plot No. 24.
3. In May 1963, the petitioner was suspended from his post and the fraud was discovered in December 1963, when the real allottee, Saeed Hassan (P. W. 5), saw the new Secretary of the Association and informed him that neither he nor his brother had been transferred the plots allotted to them respectively, although they had paid their dues. He was shown the agreement of sale purporting to have been executed by him. He denied his signature thereon. It was in these circumstances that the complainant ultimately filed a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner denied everything including his signatures, although he admitted that as Secretary of the Association he had accepted the two cheques given by the complainant and encashed them.
4. He further contended that the agreement for sale was executed by another Saeed Hassan who had since died. The High Court, however, after a comparison of the signatures and writings on the agreement of sale and the signatures of the petitioner on the cheques issued by the complainant, under section 73 of the Evidence Act, came to the conclusion that the agreement for sale was forged by the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.
5. There is no doubt that a Court is itself entitled under section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare the disputed signatures and writings with admitted writings and signatures in order to form its own opinion but the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that the High Court in particular had misread and misquoted some of the portions of the document which it bad purported to compare. Its comparison was, therefore not very reliable. Learned counsel has also contended on the basis of observations in text books on Evidence that the Court should not normally assume the role of an expert in such cases and trust upon its own inexpert comparison.
6. In view of these contentions it is necessary for us to see the original documents on the records of this case which unfortunately appear to have been forwarded to the main Registry at Lahore. Let the records be, accordingly, called for from there. In the meantime, this petition will be adjourned till the receipt of the records at Karachi.