Absence Of Handwriting Expert’s Opinion On Signatures Not Fatal To Prosecution In Corruption Cases Where Evidence Proves Guilt: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the accused challenging his conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code arising out of misappropriation of funds from a co-operative bank.

A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the evidence of PW1 supported by the other evidence is insufficient to prove the prosecution case and, in fact, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case of the accused with the aid of expert opinion identifying the handwriting and signatures of the appellant in various documents discussed herein above, it is held that the evidence discussed as that of PW1 and other witnesses, particularly, on the basis of the documentary evidence, the misappropriation at the helm of the appellant, as alleged by the prosecution, is established beyond reasonable doubt”.

In such a case, the Bench added, “there is no necessity for the prosecution to insist on corroboration of his evidence in the form of expert evidence” accordingly holding that “therefore, the absence of expert evidence is of no consequence in the instant case”.

Advocates R. Bindu and Prasanth MP appeared for the Appellant, while Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh A and Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S appeared for the respondents.

Background

The prosecution case arose out of allegations that the appellant, who served as Secretary of a Co-operative Bank, misappropriated bank funds during the years 1990 and 1991 by abusing his official position.

It was alleged that the appellant, in conspiracy with the then President of the Bank, withdrew multiple amounts using cheques, fabricated vouchers and loan documents, and made false entries in bank records to create an appearance of legitimate disbursement while diverting the funds for personal use.

After a joint trial, the Special Court convicted the appellant for offences including criminal misconduct, breach of trust, forgery, and falsification of accounts. The conviction was challenged on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove handwriting and signatures through expert evidence and that the testimony of key witnesses was insufficient.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of PW1 (Cashier) and other witnesses, along with documentary records including cash books, day books, vouchers and ledgers.

It found that the evidence clearly established that the appellant had encashed multiple cheques but failed to account for the amounts in the official records. The Court noted that the records reflected deliberate erasures, alterations and falsifications intended to conceal the misappropriation.

The Court observed that the appellant had created forged vouchers, loan applications, and repayment entries in the names of third parties who categorically denied receiving any such amounts.

It noted that these falsified entries, coupled with the absence of corresponding entries in the cash books and inconsistencies across records, established a clear pattern of manipulation. The Court held that such fabrication was carried out to “cover up the misappropriation” of the withdrawn amounts.

The Court placed significant reliance on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly the Cashier, who deposed regarding the manner in which amounts withdrawn by the appellant were not entrusted to the cash section and were subsequently masked through false entries.

It also relied on the testimony of individuals in whose names fictitious loans and payments were shown, all of whom denied receiving any such amounts, thereby corroborating the prosecution's case.

Addressing the core contention of the appellant, the Court held that the prosecution was not required to produce expert evidence to prove handwriting or signatures in every case.

The Court emphasised that where the evidence on record, particularly documentary evidence supported by witness testimony, sufficiently establishes the offence, the absence of expert opinion does not weaken the prosecution's case.

The Court also dealt with the contention that the audit report certifying the alleged misappropriation was not available on record, which, according to the appellant, weakened the prosecution's case.

The Court held that the audit report itself was founded on documents which had already been found to be manipulated and fabricated, and held that “the audit report prepared on the basis of the forged and false documents… would not have any relevance to disbelieve the prosecution case,” and accordingly concluded that “this challenge also must fail.”

Upon a cumulative assessment of the evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had successfully established misappropriation of funds by the appellant.

It concluded that the pattern of withdrawals, falsification of records, and absence of legitimate disbursement clearly proved that the appellant had committed the offences alleged against him.

Conclusion

The High Court upheld the findings of the Special Court and declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

It held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the absence of expert evidence did not affect the sustainability of the conviction.

Cause Title: Radhakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:31233)

Click here to read/download Judgment