The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a finding of forgery cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a signatory's denial of signatures without any objective verification or expert opinion. The Court observed that a finding of forgery carries serious civil consequences as well as criminal implications and therefore cannot be based on assumptions or unilateral assertions alone.

Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a writ petition filed by a fair price shop dealer challenging a Gram Sabha resolution recommending cancellation of his fair price shop, the District Magistrate's order cancelling his dealership, and the appellate order affirming the cancellation. The proceedings had been initiated on allegations that the petitioner had committed irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities and had used forged signatures on stock registers and consumption certificates.

According to the petitioner, the allegations of forgery were false and had been levelled solely on the basis of the Panchayat Secretary's denial of the signatures appearing on the stock registers and consumption certificates. It was further argued that no handwriting expert opinion or scientific examination had been obtained before concluding that the signatures were forged.

The Court noted that the impugned orders revealed that the finding of forgery had essentially been recorded solely on the basis of the denial of the signatures by the Panchayat Secretary. The Court found that neither the inquiry officer nor the authorities had undertaken any objective verification of the disputed signatures, nor had any expert opinion been obtained before arriving at the conclusion of forgery.

“A finding of forgery carries serious civil consequences as well as criminal implications and, therefore, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions or unilateral assertions, particularly when the petitioner had specifically disputed the allegation and asserted the genuineness of the signatures,” the Court observed.

Holding that the cancellation order dated 06 September 2021 and the appellate order dated 21 March 2022 could not be sustained in law, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed both orders, and directed restoration of the petitioner's fair price shop.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Garhwal Dehradun [Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1165 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order