Criminal lawyer: Opinion of handwriting expert requires corroboration by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Ashok Bhushan

In the case titled as "SK Miglani versus Nct of Delhi", it was held by the Supreme Court that magistrate while deciding, issue of whether to frame charge, cannot hold that the accused has committed the offence. It amounts to prejudging the issue before the trial. The observation made by the CMM regarding commission of forgery by the accused, at the time of framing of charges, were deleted by the the SC.

That opinion of handwriting expert is not conclusive. It requires to be corroborated by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. It was further held that the manager working in nationalised bank is not public servant, therefore, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available to the manager. Finally the order framing charges against the accused was upheld, but the observations as aforesaid made by the CMM were set aside.