https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312129 Unproved handwriting expert evidence was insufficient to establish forgery under IPC Section 468, because the report was not proved by examining the expert and could not be relied on merely through another witness; the acquittal on that charge was therefore justified. Cognizance of offences under the Indian Forest Act was also barred by limitation under the CrPC, as the offences were punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year, cognizance was taken after the limitation period, and no order extending time was made under the saving provision. The prosecution was consequently unsustainable and the conviction could not stand. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:37:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312129 Unproved handwriting expert evidence was insufficient to establish forgery under IPC Section 468, because the report was not proved by examining the expert and could not be relied on merely through another witness; the acquittal on that charge was therefore justified. Cognizance of offences under the Indian Forest Act was also barred by limitation under the CrPC, as the offences were punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year, cognizance was taken after the limitation period, and no order extending time was made under the saving provision. The prosecution was consequently unsustainable and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312129