JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- CRM No. 2703 of 2014 For the reason set out in the application, the application for condonation of delay of 67 days is allowed. CRM No. 2704 of 2014 The applicant is permitted to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-4. The application is allowed. Criminal Misc. A-124-MA of 2014 1. The application is filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of leave to appeal against the order of dismissal of private complaint filed by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the accused committed fraud and forged Will dated 12.5.2000 as though it was executed by her mother Jaswant Kaur @ Jasso @ Gurmej Kaur in order to get wrongful gain. 2. On the side of the complainant the complainant was examined as CW1. The standard thumb impression of Gurmej Kaur found in the account opening form with Punjab Gramin Bank, Manawala was produced and spoken to by CW2 Dharminder Kumar, Clerk attached to the said Bank. CW3 Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur is a hand writing expert who spoke about the result of the comparison she made with the standard thumb impression found in the account opening form with the disputed thumb impression found on the subject Will Ex. C1. 3. The trial Court having thoroughly analysed the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the evidence of the expert witness completely demolishes the version of the complainant. Having concluded that prima facie case was not made out, the trial Court chose to dismiss the complaint. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court chose to misread the evidence of CW3 Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur to arrive at a wrong conclusion. 5. We thoroughly perused the entire records in the background of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. As rightly held by the trial Court, the most important witness Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur who is a hand writing expert has completely demolished the case put forth by the appellant-complainant. 7. It would be very relevant to refer to vital portion in the cross examination of CW3 which reads as follows:- “It is correct that right and left thumb impression of the same person are always different as per the principles of Finger Prints. 7. It would be very relevant to refer to vital portion in the cross examination of CW3 which reads as follows:- “It is correct that right and left thumb impression of the same person are always different as per the principles of Finger Prints. It is correct that I have compared right thumb impression with the left hand thumb impression in my report. It is correct that the questioned thumb impressions belongs to the right hand. It is correct that I have not compared the right hand questioned thumb impression with the standard right hand thumb impressions. The standard thumb impressions available for the comparison were from the left hand present on the summoned record from the Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Amritsar, the right hand standard thumb impressions were not available.” 8. The above evidence on record would disclose that the disputed Will contained the left hand thumb impression of Jawant Kaur @ Jasso @ Gurmej Kaur. But the standard thumb impression was admitted by the right hand thumb impression of Gurmej Kaur. CW3 the hand writing expert who was examined in this case had categorically admitted that she compared the standard right thumb impression of Gurmej Kaur with the disputed left thumb impression found on the disputed Will Ex. C1. The thumb impression of the left hand will be totally different from the thumb impression of the right hand. It has been said so by the hand writing expert CW3 as well. 9. In the light of the above evidence let in by the complainant, we find that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint as no prima facie case was made out to indict the accused for the offence of forgery. 10. Therefore, leave to appeal sought for by the petitioner is declined and consequently the petition stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------