Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for sending the disputed pronote and receipt to a forensic laboratory for comparison should be allowed in view of conflicting handwriting expert opinions.
Analysis: The dispute concerned the genuineness of signatures and alleged alterations in the questioned documents. The Court noted that expert opinion on handwriting is relevant under the Evidence Act, but such opinion is not binding on the Court. Where rival expert reports are diametrically opposite, the Court may seek an independent opinion to resolve the stalemate. The Court also observed that while it can compare handwriting under Section 73, it is not a handwriting expert and ordinarily should not decide disputed signatures on a casual visual comparison when technical expertise is required. In the peculiar facts, and since the parties did not oppose an independent examination, a government forensic agency's opinion was considered necessary to assist the trial court.
Conclusion: The application for sending the questioned documents to the SFSL or CFSL for examination was allowed and the impugned order rejecting that request was set aside.