Necessity of Government FSL Reports - It is generally not mandatory for courts to call private handwriting experts; instead, reports from government forensic laboratories (FSL) are preferred for unbiased and authoritative evidence. Such reports help courts make more effective and impartial judgments, especially when technical expertise is required. Courts should rely on government FSL reports rather than private experts to avoid bias. ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2400"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 576"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1741"]
Role of Court and Expert Evidence - Courts are not trained handwriting experts; they rely on technical reports from FSL to evaluate handwriting disputes. Sending disputed signatures or documents for expert analysis is permissible even if there is a time gap between specimen and disputed signatures. The expert’s comparison, along with the court’s visual assessment, aids in forming an opinion on authenticity. ["2021 0 Supreme(Guj) 722"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 576"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1741"]
Procedure for FSL Reports and Witnesses - For admissibility, FSL reports should be proved through the testimony of the expert who prepared them, typically by summoning the expert as a witness. The court must ensure the report’s authenticity and allow cross-examination of the expert to assess reliability. Merely submitting a certified copy without expert testimony is insufficient. ["2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1741"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 528"], ["RESHMA BAI Vs JAGTAR SINGH & ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]
Private Handwriting Experts and Court Reliance - While private experts can be engaged, courts generally prefer government forensic reports for objectivity. If private examinations are conducted, their reports need to be corroborated by expert testimony in court to be admissible. Courts have sometimes dismissed private expert opinions due to lack of procedural compliance or expertise. ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11355"], ["2021 0 Supreme(HP) 869"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 528"]
Legal and Procedural Considerations - Courts are required to follow proper procedures for admitting expert reports, including examining the expert and providing parties an opportunity for cross-examination. Reports obtained during investigation (e.g., FSL reports) are admissible but must be properly proved in court. Unauthorized private examinations or failure to produce reports for cross-examination can lead to inadmissibility. ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1093"], ["2021 0 Supreme(HP) 869"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11355"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across the sources indicates that calling a government forensic handwriting expert (FSL) is not strictly necessary if the court can rely on the FSL report, which is considered more unbiased and authoritative than private experts. The court’s role is to evaluate the report’s credibility, often through expert testimony, and ensure procedural fairness by allowing cross-examination. Private handwriting experts can be used, but their reports require proper legal procedures, including expert examination and cross-examination in court, to be admissible. Overall, reliance on government FSL reports streamlines the process and enhances objectivity in handwriting verification cases.
