A court cannot blindly accept the report of a handwriting expert. The expert must furnish the necessary criteria for deciding the accuracy of his conclusion, enabling the court to form its own independent judgment by applying the criteria to the facts proved in evidence.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed, by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-76, passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1974 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs. 10335/- with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 2% per annum.

( 2 ) A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant on the allegation that the defendant-appellant had borrowed Rs. 9000/- from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 1% per month on 15-4-1972 and had executed a pro note in his favour. As the amount was not paid the suit was filed. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The main allegation of the defendant was that no pro note was ever executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. During the trial of the suit the plaintiff examined himself besides the scribe of the pro note Radhey Shyam and the attesting witness Munni Lal, P. W. 3. Radhey Shyam testified the execution of the pro note while Munni Lal testified the borrowing of the amount and the execution of the pro note. As the defendant-appellant had denied his signatures on the pro note Handwriting Expert Sri Madan Mohan Kacker was produced as P. W. 4, who compared the signatures on the pro note with the specimen signatures and other signatures of the defendant and found that they were the penmanship of the same person, namely, the defendant-appellant. The appellant also adduced evidence in denial and also examined an expert to support his contention that the signatures on the pro note were not his signatures. After appraising the evidence on record and believing the expert testimony of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker and disbelieving the deposition of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, Handwriting Expert, produced as D. W. 3, the trial court found that the defendant had taken the loan and had executed the pro note. The suit was accordingly decreed as already noted above.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED, the defendant-appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1974. After hearing the parties in detail the appellate court on a careful consideration of the evidence on record upheld the findings of the trial court decreeing the suit.

( 4 ) THIS second appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 31-5-1976 by which the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that no attempt was made by the trial court to find out the correctness of the signatures of the defendant on the pro note. I am unable to agree with this submission. The trial court as well as the appellate court have thoroughly dealt with this aspect and the appellate court has particularly gone into the evidence of the experts while reaching the conclusion that the pro note bore the signatures of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant then urged that the courts below erred in law in relying upon the testimony of Madan Mohan Kacker, P. W. 4, who had given his report. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the courts below to have based their conclusion not merely on the report but on the evidence and the examination of the reports. Mere reliance on the report was not warranted and instead the courts below ought to have considered truthfulness of the report. This submission is without any merit. The appellate court has very strenuously tried to find out from the evidence on record and has very carefully examined the report and the testimony of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker, P. W. 4, and also the report of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, D. W. 3. The report of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, D. W. 3, was of no avail to the appellant and the courts below rightly discarded such incredible testimony. The trial court and the appellate court left only with the report of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker, carefully examined it and found it convincing. Comparing the signatures of