Signature comparison in election disputes must be used cautiously; courts should avoid unaided handwriting findings that overturn results.

In an election dispute involving disputed ballot counterfoil signatures, the Supreme Court cautioned that a court should not invalidate votes by relying solely on its own comparison of handwriting under Section 73 of the Evidence Act where numerous signatures are contested and witnesses deny the alleged voting irregularities. The Court held that such a comparison is unsafe without appropriate expert assistance or reliable admitted signatures, especially when the consequence would be to annul an election. On the facts, the votes treated as void on that basis could not validly support the finding that the returned candidate had lost, and the declaration of the other candidate as duly elected was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the election could be set aside on the basis of a large number of alleged void votes by the court itself comparing disputed signatures on ballot counterfoils with admitted signatures, and whether the returned candidate's election was liable to be declared void on that basis.

Analysis: The challenged votes were treated as void by the High Court mainly on a comparison of disputed counterfoil signatures with signatures taken as admitted. The Supreme Court held that, on the peculiar facts, this approach was unsafe where numerous signatures were disputed and many witnesses denied having voted more than once or denied the signatures relied upon. In such a situation, the court should not undertake the hazardous task of deciding genuineness of signatures unaided, especially when the result would annul an election. The court emphasized that comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act should be undertaken with caution and, where necessary, with expert assistance rather than by judicial comparison alone. Since at least 130 votes could not validly be treated as void on that approach, the finding that the returned candidate had lost the election could not stand.

Conclusion: The election could not be set aside on the basis adopted by the High Court, and the declaration of the first respondent as duly elected was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A court should not, in a case involving numerous disputed signatures and serious electoral consequences, base a finding on signature identity solely on its own comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act without appropriate expert assistance or reliable admitted signatures.

---