S.45 Indian Evidence Act | Court Can Refuse Expert Opinion For Comparing Signatures If No Doubt Exists Regarding Genuineness: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that normally a court shall seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act when it has to compare admitted and disputed signatures. However it can refuse such expert opinion only if there are "no doubts regarding the genuineness" of the signatures after comparison.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 45 which provides that the...
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that normally a court shall seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act when it has to compare admitted and disputed signatures.
However it can refuse such expert opinion only if there are "no doubts regarding the genuineness" of the signatures after comparison.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 45 which provides that the Court can call for evidence of expert to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It however said that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case, adding that the Court under Section 73 can itself compare the signatures or handwriting.
However, Justice Dhand observed that the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that Court cannot act as an expert in all the cases; unless it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are different, the Court should normally call for an opinion from the expert.
It thus said, “Therefore, by perusing the dicta in the above decisions, it can be said that the Court shall normally seek expert opinion when it is posed with a situation where it has to compare admitted and disputed signatures.The Court can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness of the signatures, after comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. In cases where even a slightest doubt exists, the Court shall send the admitted and disputed signatures getting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by a daily wage worker against the order of the Labour Court wherein it was alleged that his services were availed by the State in 1999 for more than 240 days before terminating him in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without providing any notice or compensation.
It was further submitted that in order to evade responsibility, his wages were paid by the State under different names with his signatures on various payment vouchers containing those different names. The petitioner approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court with a request to take expert opinion on the handwriting as well as his signatures on the vouchers.
However, such request was rejected and the order was passed holding that the petitioner was not able to establish that he worked formore than 240 days for the State. Hence, petition was filed by the petitioner against this order/award of the Labour Court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the disputed fact in question regarding wages being paid to the petitioner under different names could not be adjudicated by the Court under its inherent jurisdiction but by the Labour Court after considering evidence from both the sides.
It was further opined that for such adjudication, the courts could consider expert opinions under Section 45 of the Act, however, such opinion were not conclusive and needed corroboration by some other independent evidence. The Court further observed that,
“Though, under Section 45 of the Act of 1872, the Court can compare the disputed handwriting and signatures but relying on the Court's own comparison of signatures is not sufficient and the expert opinion is essential for fair adjudication of the matter, but at the same time, no opinion can be formed only on such evidence, unless the same is corroborated by any other independent evidence.”
The Court also highlighted Section 73 of the Act under which the court could itself also compare the signature or handwriting. However, it was observed that in many cases, the Supreme Court had cautioned that court could not act as an expert in all the cases. Referring to Supreme Court decisions the court said,
“In Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka reported in 1997 (7) SCC 110, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is even slightest of doubt in the mind of the Judge, while comparing the admitted and disputed signatures, such signatures shall be sent for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872…In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, reported in 2008 (4) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is risky to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and handwriting, without an expert opinion.”
In the background of this analysis, the Court held that the court shall seek expert opinion where it had to be compare admitted and disputed signatures, even where slightest doubt existed regarding the signatures' genuineness. Such requirement could be ignored only when there existed no doubt regarding the genuineness of the signatures.
It was stated that since in the present case an opinion of the expert was required to verify the disputed fact, the court quashed the award and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court directing it to get an opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner on the payment vouchers of wages.
The high court further said that after getting opinion of the expert, it is expected from the labour Court/Tribunal to decide and adjudicate the matter on the merits, on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties, before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the matter was disposed of.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Nirvan v Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 109
