https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305767 Oral testimony of the alleged loan beneficiaries, read with the documentary record, established that the loan applications and related papers were forged because the beneficiaries had neither applied for the loans nor signed the documents. The handwriting expert's opinion reinforced that the disputed signatures matched the appellant, and the challenge to the specimen signatures failed since Section 311A CrPC was not in force for the 1983-1986 occurrence and the amendment was prospective. In any event, the oral evidence alone was sufficient to prove forgery and use of forged documents. The conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Dec 2022 21:07:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305767 Oral testimony of the alleged loan beneficiaries, read with the documentary record, established that the loan applications and related papers were forged because the beneficiaries had neither applied for the loans nor signed the documents. The handwriting expert's opinion reinforced that the disputed signatures matched the appellant, and the challenge to the specimen signatures failed since Section 311A CrPC was not in force for the 1983-1986 occurrence and the amendment was prospective. In any event, the oral evidence alone was sufficient to prove forgery and use of forged documents. The conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305767