The learned counsel for the defendant further argued that the evidence of D.
- Welcome to IFS :?
- dating and difficulty.
- dating patterns in china.
- Secondary Menu.
- Relative Ink Age Comparison Tests – Ink Dating.
The defendant has examined D. Moreover the photographic enlargements made by the expert Pt.
AGE OF SIGNATURE/INK – Anil Gupta Forensic Service
Ashok Kashyap placed the matter beyond doubt that the revenue stamps were transplanted in Ex. Hence, I am inclined to accept the report of the expert, D. The photo enlargements of the expert clearly show that the signatures of the defendant of the revenue stamp are extended with a different pen. A-1 clearly shows that revenue stamps were transplanted on Ex. Court Recognition as an Expert Sh. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi A. The contention of the defendant is that Ex. A-1 is a forged document.
His contention is supported by the handwriting Expert Ashok Kashyap. The handwriting expert has categorically stated in his report that the disputed signature in Ex. A-1 is forged one ….. A-1 is not executed by the defendant as opined by Ashok Kashyap. I do not find any reason to reject the evidence of DW-3, Ashok Kashyap , in present case, the trial court P.
Warangal did not give any reason as to why it has to come to a different conclusion than that of expert DW In the result the appeal is allowed, the trial court judgment and decree are set aside. Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O. Both sides have adduced evidence.
The handwriting expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap was examined as P. The handwriting expert is not an interested witness. Moreover as per his testimony he got very good reputation in his field as a Handwriting Expert. Nothing contrary was elicited by the defence counsel throughout the cross examination of P. Though, he was confronted in all aspects. In view of the Experts report Ex. C-1 and the evidence of P. B-1 is not containing the signature of the plaintiff and they were forged". Civil Judge, Ongole in O. During pendency of the suit, Ex.
B-1 was sent to the Govt. Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad for comparison of thumb impressions on Ex. B-1 at the instance of the defendants. The Expert PW-3 sent a report, marked as Ex. A-5 stating that for want of clear ridge characteristics, the thumb impression on Ex. B-1 is unfit for comparison. Karunanidhi gave evidence as PW-3 in support of his opinion. The defendants got Ex. B-1 sent for comparison of the thumb impression to Private expert by name PT. Ashok Kashyap of Delhi who gave opinion stating that the thumb impression on Ex.
B-1 and the deposition of PW-1 are identical. He gave evidence as DW-6 in the court. He gave six identical features of thumb impression on Ex. B-1 and the thumb impression on the deposition. It is evident that the said pronote is not proved, not valid, not supported by consideration and not executed by the deceased defendant as opined by expert Ashok Kashyap. I do not find any discrepancy in the evidence of handwriting expert.
I say that the endorsement is forged. This suit is decreed in terms of the Sulehnama compromise Deed filed by both the parties.
- Ink Dating Expert Witnesses.
- speed dating in victoria b c.
- how to tell if youre dating a man.
- Our Services;
- i kiss dating goodbye.
- online dating death stories.
- how down dating app works!
- carbon dating scientist.
- online dating commercial spoof.
- Post navigation.
- online dating positive aspects.
- AGE OF SIGNATURE/INK - Anil Gupta Forensic Service.
The plaintiff got the report from another Expert Shri S. The report of the two experts are quite contradictory. Ashok Kashyap was subjected to long cross-examination but nothing was elicited so as to create any reasonable doubt with regard to his testimony. It can be legitimately inferred that the evidence of Ashok Kashyap is superior to that of the evidence of P. Ds have examined Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert. On the other hand, the D. S Handwriting Expert as D. I am of the opinion that the report of R. I am not inclined to attach any weight to his report.
On the contrary, the report of Ashok Kashyap is not only scientific and logical but also based on sound reasoning. The reasons adduced by him appear to be sound and acceptable. The execution of receipt Ex. The appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Ink Dating Expert Witnesses :: JurisPro :: Documents & Handwriting Experts & Consultants
The defendant also got another handwriting Expert examined as D. I find that the two experts were examined in the court below Munsif, Garhwa and they had given different opinions. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff after accepting the evidence of the plaintiff. I have myself looked to the disputed signatures. From the perusal of these handwritings by naked eye, it will appear that the writer of the specimen signatures was not the man who signed the disputed receipt as opined by Expert Ashok Kashyap. The judgment and decree passed by the learned court below Munsif-Garhwa is hereby set aside " As First Appellate Court.
He opined that T. P1 is that of the first defendant. In view of the evidence of P. The suit is decreed with costs. One Ashok Kashyap, a reputed Handwriting Expert of Delhi has opined that the documents contained the writings of the defendant. His opinion has not been challenged by the defendant by filling any objection.
The evidence of the plaintiff and the expert opinion clearly prove that Parasmal executed Ex. Munsif, Chikmaglur Karnataka in O. The natural, cogent and consistent evidence of P. This court is of the view that both the writings are of the defendant only. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Lingaiah , an Expert of Govt. Another expert DW-3 Ashok Kashyap has given his opinion with detailed reasons. The report of PW-4 is not trustworthy. It is pointed out that PW-4 A. Lingaiah is not qualified, whereas Ashok Kashyap is duly qualified with the specific Science of Handwriting and has vast experience.
It has been proved by defendant that the suit pronote is got up one, the suit is dismissed….. The suit is dismissed. The documents were sent to Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi who opined that the disputed signature in pronote Ex. A1 was not made by the defendant. A-1 promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendants as opined by Ashok Kashyap, Document Expert of Delhi. No grounds to admit this C. Munsif, Quilon Kerala in O. According to him, the signature in Ex. B-7 is not genuine. I have compared the signature in Ex.
B-7 with the admitted signatures. I have to hold that Ex. B-7 is not genuine as opined by the Expert Ashok Kashyap. In the result, the suit is decreed. As Trial Court 2a Shri K. Munsif, Quilon decreed the suit of the plaintiff by accepting the opinion of Ashok Kashyap. This means that Ex. I do not find any reason to interfere with judgement passed by the learned court below. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Munsif, Ernakulam Kerala in O. The documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert, Ashok Kashyap of Delhi for examination and opinion.
I am satisfied that the signatures of the defendant are forged one. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert about the forged signature of the defendant corroborated by my own personal examination suggest that Ex. I am of the opinion that the document writer P. I am inclined to accept the reports filed by Ashok Kashyap and accept his findings.
In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. It is case of the plaintiff that she has not executed any such document with her knowledge and consent. The plaintiff is called absent, hence this is dismissed. Sub-Judge, Quilon Kerala in O. The documents were sent to another expert Ashok Kashyap of Delhi for his opinion. He opined that the signatures were written by the defendant.
I am of the opinion that the disputed signatures in Ex. A-3 were put by D. In the end, the plaintiff is given a decree. Arimboor, Thrissur in C. D-5 report that the accused is the author of the signature. P-3 cheque along with the standard signatures and admitted signatures for a second expert opinion with a direction to send a report with the photographic enlargements of signatures.
The accused had also filed Crl. It has come out from the examination of DW-1 expert that the report is not supported by any photographic enlargement of the disputed signature. D series report to the effect that the accused is not the author of the disputed signature in Ext. The court can only come to the conclusion that the complainant has not succeeded to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find that the accused is not liable to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section of the IPC. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence charged against him under Section of the IPC.
He is acquitted under Section 1 of the Cr. Bail bond is cancelled and he is set at liberty. The methodology adopted by the Ex. Expert State Forensic Lab, Thiruvanthapuram in his report not basing his opinion on comparison of photo-enlargements was found not Judicially convincing and lead to the acquittal of the accused in a case under section The plaintiff denied his signatures and in his support produced the report of Ashok Kashyap PW-1 and in his opinion, the disputed signatures were not written by the author of the specimen and admitted signatures.
There is no basis to reject his opinion Translated from Devanagri to English Shri J. The defendants produced Expert D. The report of D. The opinion of P. There is nothing to disbelieve his report. Defendants have not filed any report in rebuttal. Gregory Expert , Lucknow in establishing the identity of the prints. Civil Judge, Bulandshahar U. Ashok Kashyap has testified Munsif, Etah discussed the expert evidence. In my opinion, the learned court did not rightly approve of the opinion of C. It accepted the opinion and evidence of Ashok Kashyap D. I myself saw and compared the signatures to arrive at the same conclusion at which Ashok Kashyap arrived.
District Judge, Moradabad U. A compromise was filed in this appeal by him. The respondents filed objections alleging the compromise to be forged. Both the Experts have filed their reports. The perusal of their reports shows that Ashok Kashyap is more qualified and experienced than Expert produced by the Appellant. In the circumstances, the report of Ashok Kashyap carries more weight.
R-2 was referred to another Handwriting Exert Pt. Ashok Kashyap of Delhi by my predecessor in office. The said expert, who is examined as PW-3 before this court expressed the opinion that the disputed signature on EX. Recognition as an Expert Note: Panduranga Rao, High Court of A. I, therefore, do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below Both the learned courts below agreeing with the opinion of Expert, Ashok Kashyap, Delhi, that Ex.
The revision petition is dismissed". Hon'ble Sri Justice V. As first defendant pleaded forgery, he sought expert's opinion and at his instance, Ex. Ashok Kashyap, handwriting expert of Delhi. The opinion given by him was marked as Ex. Learned trial Judge rejected the plea of forgery on the ground that the evidence of D. Therefore, they would urge that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting Ex. According to them, as per this evidence, the signature of first defendant on Ex. After recording elaborate opinion, he opined that the disputed signature on Ex.
An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to examine D. In his examination he deposed that he studied in Guntur, and therefore, he knows Telugu It is admitted before this Court that D. Accordingly, the appeal, being A. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself had been examined as PW-1 and one of the attestors of Ex. A-1 had been examined as pw At the instance of the respondent, Ex.
A-1 pronote was sent to Pt. Ashok kashyap, handwriting expert of Delhi , who in his report ex. Then the respondent had been examined as DW-1 and the handwriting expert Pt. Ashok kashyap had been examined as DW-2 and certain documents had been marked The learned senior civil judge observed that the pronote Ex. A-1 had been already sent to the handwriting expert, who is a popular and renowned handwriting expert and that the said expert had given sound reasoning for the conclusions arrived at by him and that the said report is not set aside by the court The main contention of the respondent is that Ex.
A-1 was already sent to the handwriting expert, who had given his opinion and that merely because the opinion of the handwriting expert, is against to the wish of the petitioner, the opinion of the second expert cannot be taken. Moreover when the petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert Ashok Kashyap DW-2 at length and nothing had been elicited from his evidence.
District Judge, Kakinada in I. Muralidhar, Scientific Offcier, A. Ashok Kashyap another expert……. Vinayaka Rao, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of Sr. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad. Ashok Kashyap, another expert to cross-examine the said witness on behalf of the defendants……..
Seetharama Murti, High Court of A. The trial Court had allowed the application filed by the defendants and accorded permission to them to have the said expert Mr. Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad cross-examined by another expert by name Mr. Ashok Kashyap accepting the contention that the services of such a qualified and experienced expert are required to thoroughly cross-examine the expert, who furnished the opinion.
It is an admitted fact that the defendants had executed a special power of attorney in favour of the said expert, Ashok Kashyap, to appear on their behalf and to cross-examine the expert, who had furnished the opinion…… If necessary, a qualified and an experienced Advocate can be engaged to cross-examine the expert witness. Further, such an Advocate can take the assistance and instructions from an expert like Mr. Ashok Kashyap and can cross examine the expert witness with such aid and assistance, if necessary In order to show that signatures of testator were forged, defendants produced Handwriting Expert Ashok Kashyap.
State, in IA No. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Thereafter, the present petition was filed". In the present case, as far as the first article of charge is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has proceeded on the evidence of Mr. The Inquiry Officer appears to have correctly analysed the evidence. The approach itself seems to be objective and fair. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition and the pending application are dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
It was contended by Ms. Bhattacharya that the carbon impression of documents is admissible in evidence, and is treated as an original document. Being a primary document, ……. Ashok Kashyap PW-1 ……….. Kamala Rajamanikkam vs Smt. Air SC Sahay that due credence ought to be given to the testimony of the expert witness PW-1, produced by the petitioner, especially in the circumstances, that even though the respondents had obtained an order from the court that they would be producing their own expert witness, they chose not to avail of the opportunity granted by the court.
The Forensic Expert submitted his opinion that the unregistered will was forged. Ashok Kashyap with her complaint".
No DW is present, Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has received copy of affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert today only Uma Pathak and Shri Rajat Pathak vs. Eurasian Choice International Pvt. Accordingly, I appointed "Pt. Ashok Kashyap " and Shri B. Shimla suggested by the petitioners and the latter by the respondents to give their opinion on the genuineness of the signatures of the deceased….
Ashok Kashyap has categorically opined that the signatures in the minutes are forged, Shri Lal has opined that it is not possible to to give any definite opinion. When the reports were made available to the parties, the respondents filed an application challenging the findings of Pt. Lal an indefinite opinion, I have made my own camprison…… in other words, signatures of the deceased on the minutes may not be genuine ".
As opined by Ashok Kashyap. Paliwal and Shri B. Ashok Kashyap Report evidencing the forgery it was pointed out that the report of handwriting expert Mrs. Vij placed on record by the respondents suffered from several discrepancies; …….. The contesting respondent has come to the high court with unclean hands.
In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. The respondents in response to the same have also taken a report of an expert wherein the report of the expert clearly states that the signature on form 32 is of the petitioner no. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have filed handwriting expert's report to substantiate their contention ……. The petitioners have correctly pointed out various defects and discrepancies in the handwriting expert's report which the respondents' have furnished to give credence to their contentions in this regard.
On considering these contentions, I find that the petitioners are on a sound ground" ……….. Importance of juxtaposition charts for comparison. Through the medium of this petition, petition Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed, who is a bank employee holding the post of cashier-cum-clerk in the UCO Bank, Srinagar has challenged the penalty of discharge from service imposed on him on the charge of grave misconduct….
Ashok Kashyap about the alleged signatures of the petitioner. They examined three witnesses namely Mr. Ashok Kashyap and Mr. In the circumstances this petition is allowed. I leave it to the respondents that if they choose they may conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the rules…….
The lower court Munsif, Mannarghat rightly said that there is no proof of execution of Ex. Sunil kumari vs dharampal and others case no. Sonipat, Haryana vide judgment and decree dated First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by Learned District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated He has opined that the impugned agreement and receipt bear thumb impressions as well as singnatures of Sunil Kumari defendant ……Plaintiffs have led overwhelming evidence to prove their case.
It is thus manifest that the suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the courts below ….. Civil Writ Petition No. Hence this writ petition…… …….. Nagamuthu, Madras High Court , in case V. It was pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that though there is an averment in paragraph no. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting Expert has given a certificate Opnion on For this, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is by inadvertence the same has been omitted.
Recognition as an Expert. V Extract from Foreign Court Judgment. Hon'ble High Court graciously accepted his evidence. I would like to extend my gratitude towards your kind consideration into looking at our document questioning matters. Over here, the document itself has been testified by the Government Chemical analyst and that cannot be questioned again as the analyst is our witness….
We really appreciate all your efforts and hard work. We will definitely come back to you if it is necessary. I think you have brought out the significant features of the signatures under Scrutiny both by the enlargements and by the lucid reasoning. I have also learnt that your services are utilized by many of the Govt. As there are some cases for consultation in handwriting, I would like to know from you the time you will take for giving your opinion on questioned writings". X-1 report is issued by the handwriting expert, Mr. Ashok Kashyap of International reputation Therefore, the judgements of various high Courts and Supreme Court bear an ample testimony to the knowledge of this expert.
A-3 is not executed by one defendant as opined by Ashok Kashyap, Expert, Delhi I sincerely thank you and your office for coming to my rescue when I was facing a turbulent phase of my life….. Further, I am extremely happy that you withstood the cross-examination of the opposite party. You were highly confident in the inquiry proceedings and did not yield to any pressure tactics of the opposition….. Your report, analysis, testimony and above all your presence itself was a hall mark in the inquiry proceedings, which ultimately helped me in getting exoneration in the departmental inquiry.
I sincerely pray the God that he should grace you good health and conditions so that you can render your help to needy people like me….. I shall remain grateful and indebted to you and remember you forever…" …………………… I have known Sh. Ashok Kashyap, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for several years. He belongs to an illustrious family of handwriting experts and commands an all India practice.
I strongly recommend him for impartial and competent professional services" Shri S. I have had the pleasure of reviewing your credentials on website and they are sterling as compared to others I have seen in India" …………………… Documents were transmitted for examination and opinion to Kashyap Handwriting Expert and the above enconium acted as a pre-cursor to actual submission of the opinion on questioned document. Shri Bawa Niranjan Singh B. Says "Now as to the expert evidence it is true that defendants have produced the Governments expert and the expert produced by the plaintiff is comparatively younger in this procession.
But the evidence of the former cannot be accepted simply because he happens to be the government experts, And that of the latter cannot be rejected, because he is a private expert Expert, with all his experience did not find anything suspicious about the signature or stamp on the contested receipt ex. D-6, is not genuine consequently I decide this issue against the defendants Government Expert disbelieved Delhi.
Kashyap, Handwriting Expert of Jaipur. Justice Upendralal Waghray, Judges A. High Court, Hyderabad, in L. Plaintiff referred the disputed thumb impression of Ex. Fingerprint Bureau Expert at Hyderabad……. It was not possible for him to decipher the disputed T. The debtor sent it to another expert Prof.
Method for Obtaining Raw Data for the R-Ration and Percent Extraction – Ink Dating
Kashyap of Jaipur, who opined that the disputed fingerprint was not that of the debtor. The trial court held that the debtor did not execute the disputed pronote Ex. A1 by relying on the expert opinion of Prof. Fingerprint Bureau Expert and dismissed the suit. We are unable to agree with the reasonings on the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.
Ink and Paper Analysis / Trace Evidence / Questioned Document Examination
The expert evidence is unhelpful to the creditor. We see the order under appeal is unsustainable.
We reverse the same. R-2 was referred to another handwriting expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap of Delhi by my predecessor in office The said expert, who is examined as PW-3 before this court expressed the opinion that the disputed signature on Ex. Civil Judge, Ongole A. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in O. Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad for comparison of the thumb impressions on Ex. A-5 stating that for want of clear ridge characteristics, the defendants got Ex. B-1 sent for comparison of the Expert M. B-1 sent for comparison of the Thumb Impression to a private expert by name Pt.
B-1 and the deposition of P. He gave evidence as DW-6 in the Court. B-1 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got the report from another expert Shri S. Ashok Kashyap was subjected to long cross examination but nothing was elicited so as to create any reasonable doubt with regard to his testimony. It can be legitimately inferred that the evidence of Ashok Kashyap is superior to that of the evidence of PW Eurasain Choice International Pvt. Accordingly, 1 appointed " Pt.
The Handwriting Experts have submitted their reports. Ashok Kashyap has categorically opined that the signatures in the minutes are forged, Shri Lal has opined that it is not possible to give any definite opinion. An interval of five years or even less, under certain health or changed business conditions, may show a number of permanent and significant changes. Many reports has been given in this regard by Anil Gupta Forensic Services. An entirely new approach was made in a case, where date of signature on a typed letter dt. Earlier to know the age of the signature, age of document was determined by ink, paper, printing and subject matter examination.
A detailed analysis of 61 signature specimens dt. The examination showed a clear variation in the signatures with due course of time as natural variations. Using these variations the age of the signature was determined and reported. Many cases has been examined carefully and reports have been submitted and also appeared for evidence in the court regarding to determination of age of the signatures on the behalf of Anil Gupta Forensic Services and more study is also made and continuous to be made in this regard from the cases received by Anil Gupta Forensic Services for the determination of the age of the signature.
The examination of the ink with regard to determination of the age of the signature is correlated with each other. The inks may be printing ink, coping ink. Sometime chemical and other ink tests are required for the identification of the age of the document. Microscopic examination of the ink is also required for the determination of the age relating to ink problem and case in hand. Composition of the ink is any important factor in this regard. According to Anil Gupta Forensic Services in establishing or disproving the genuineness of the disputed document there are great many questions according to ink.
It is possible to determine in most instances the identity or differences, the relative age and sequence of ink writings. A great variety of question on the subject of ink can be answered definitely and are of proven value as evidence. It is therefore important to be familiar at least with the major types of the ink their composition ad basic characteristics to the extent to which these facts may have significance for the document condition.
As ink manufacturing improved from time to time, examination of these inks required the development of new techniques to identify or differentiate one kind from another with respect to determination of the age.