Handwriting Expert's Opinion Not The Only Mode To Prove Signature And Handwriting : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of proving the signature and handwriting of a person.

The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court said.

In this case, the Orissa High Court quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, under Sections 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.) and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the disputed signatures was non-conclusive.

Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed thus:

"It is pointed out that the opinion of the handwriting expert was filed for the first time before the High Court and was not available with the Trial Court at the time when cognizance was taken. That apart, the signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person"

As per Section 45, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of as to identity of handwriting etc.,  opinion given by persons specially skilled in such matters is relevant.

Section 47 reads as follows: When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Further under Section 73,  in order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. In that case, the Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

Headnotes

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Sections 45,47, 73 - Opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person - The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73.

Summary : Appeal against Orissa High Court judgment which quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the disputed signatures was non-conclusive - Allowed.

Case details

Manorama Naik vs State of Odisha | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297 | CrA 423/2022 | 14 March 2022

Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi