Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Manorama Naik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Odisha & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9722 of 2016)
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Handwriting Expert - Quashing of Cognizance Order - The court held that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way to prove the signature and handwriting of a person, as it can also be proved under Sections 45, 47, and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The impugned order quashing the cognizance order was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The impugned order quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri in a case under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, citing non-conclusive opinion of the handwriting expert on disputed signatures.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order, stating that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way to prove the signature and handwriting of a person, and that the signatures and handwriting can also be proved under Sections 45, 47, and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Issues: The key issue was the reliance on the opinion of the handwriting expert and its conclusive nature in quashing the cognizance order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the sole method of proving signatures and handwriting, as it can also be established under Sections 45, 47, and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the case was treated as dismissed, with the accused being allowed to raise all questions and contentions before the Trial Court.
Key Points: - The opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way to prove signature and handwriting, as it can also be proved under Sections 45, 47, and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act (!) . - The court set aside the impugned order quashing the cognizance order due to reliance on the non-conclusive opinion of the handwriting expert (!) (!) . - The signatures and handwriting of a person can be established through multiple legal provisions, not solely dependent on handwriting expert opinion (!) . - The impugned order was set aside, and the case is treated as dismissed, allowing the accused to raise all questions before the Trial Court (!) . - The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs, and pending applications are also disposed of (!) .
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order dated 27.06.2016 has quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri in G.R. Case No. 854/2010 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.
3. 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.
4. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order is set aside and Crl. M.C. No. 37/2013 would be treated as dismissed. However, we make it clear that we have not commented on the merits of the matter. It will be open to the accused to raise all questions and contentions before the Trial Court in accordance with law.
5. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms of without any order as to costs. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
The opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way to prove the signature and handwriting of a person, as it can also be established under Sections 45, 47, and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1....
The handwriting expert's report cannot be discarded if it pertains to a relevant aspect of the matter, and the accused has the opportunity to challenge the report.
The opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the court, and inconsistencies in signature usage can undermine claims of forgery.
The absence of contemporaneous admitted signatures renders a request for handwriting analysis of disputed signatures unjustified, emphasizing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
Point of Law : Handwriting experts opinion u/sec. 45 & 73 of Evidence Act is a week evidence and court should be slow to base their findings solely on such opinion, but should apply their own mind an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
