AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the admitted signature and disputed signature, no purpose would be served by referring the disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert. Some other learned Judges have taken a view that in view of scientific advances, the handwriting expert can compare the admitted and disputed signatures even if there is a long time gap between them. The inconsistency between the two line of cases would certainly create a dilemma for the Courts below. Of late, there is increasing number of suits for recovery of money based on promissory notes in which invariably defendants take a plea that suit promissory note is forged or fabricated. There is also increasing number of instances where the parties to the proceedings seek indulgence of the Court to send disputed documents to handwriting expert at a belated stage. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate if the matter is adjudicated by larger Bench to decide the question whether a civil Court is barred from sending disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert if the time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature is very long." 3. The office is therefore directed to place both the civil revision p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndwriting/signature to a handwriting expert (under Section 45 of the Evidence Act) if the time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature is very large. 7. During the course of hearing, we are informed that there are instances where handwritings or signatures referred for expert opinion; either the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents or a private expert are being returned to the referring Court for furnishing contemporaneous handwritings/signatures. The Judicial precedents placed before us also do not throw much light on the essential issue whether a contemporaneity is a non-derogable substrate for furnishing expert opinion of questioned handwritings/ signatures. 8. In the circumstances, the following issues are, in our view relevant to be considered before proceeding to answer the reference. "a) Are contemporaneous handwritings/signatures always or normally necessary for comparison and report; b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaneity; c) Why are Examiner of Questioned Documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and what is the measure of contemporaneity Comment: Contemporaneous means occurrence at same period of time. No specific measure could be assigned to the element of contemporaneity. One of the famous authors in the field of examination of documents, Ordway Hilton, in his famous book Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, states that material written two or three years before or after the disputed writing serve as satisfactory standards and the same is enunciated in page 11 of Annexure enclosed. c) i) Why are Examiners of Questioned Documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures/ handwritings Comment: Document Experts examine carefully and thoroughly the disputed writings and the standard writings and compare them like-with-like. There are two kinds of standards, informal which mean documents previously executed in routine course and formal which is request writing. In case of request writing the writer may intentionally disguise his or her own writing in order to avoid detection. In some cases the writing may be executed with the non-dominant hand in order to change the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking comparison of handwritings/signatures and concluded the Report, stating thus: Identification of handwriting is based on like-with-like comparison. During the process of identification consideration must be given to the writing variation. No two samples of writing written by any individual are identical in every detail, since variation is an integral part of natural writing. 13. Nature and extent of variation differs from person to person and, in its way, forms an important element in identification process. Writing variation is due to various factors external factors like writing position, writing instrument, care of execution, etc; physical and mental conditions like fatigue, intoxication, drug use, illness, nervousness, etc. These factors produce a varying degree of variation. The variation is commensurable in its degree with the intensity of the cause. 14. The advanced age of the writer and the quality of writing he prepares in the course of time may introduce greater variation between writings written at widely separated dates. 15. Variation does not preclude identification of the writing. In fact, it forms an additional factor that serves to personalize the wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritings/signatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast norm as to when comparison can or cannot be undertaken owing to the time lag between the two sets of handwritings/signatures. Various other factors would have to be taken into consideration, as opined by the experts, quoted hereinbefore. Each case would turn upon its own facts and circumstances relating to the time lag, the change in the handwriting/signature, the capability of correlating the two sets and ultimately, the opinion of the expert himself as to whether the two sets can be compared. It is therefore not open to the Court to refuse to entertain an application seeking comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures on the ground of a long lapse of time between the two sets of handwritings/signatures. 25. Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P. Nos. 1500 and 1572 of 2010, would submit that the question referred for consideration by the learned Judge was widen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of a signature depends on many factors. The type of pen used, the ink, the quickness of the flow of the pen, the paper on which it was written, the place where the signature is put e.g., a signature on a rough paper would not be exactly the same as that on a smooth paper. In the same way, a signature written with a rough pen would not be the same as a signature with a good smooth-writing pen. Similarly if some smooth pad or some such object is used for resting the paper at the time of the signature, then that signature would be different from the signature put on a paper resting on a rough surface. 29. There are many factors which have to be taken into consideration in effecting a comparison of the two signatures, and although a Court could apply its own eyes and its own mind to determine whether a particular signature is resembling another it would be going beyond the ordinary limits of the capacity of a Court to constitute itself as a Handwriting Expert and try to compare the signature without all the gadgets and devices which are available to a Handwriting Expert, besides the lack of expert knowledge which a Handwriting Expert possesses. 30. When oral evidence clearly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. 34. Pertinent to note, merely because an application seeking expert opinion is filed belatedly, it would not automatically mean that the signatures sent for comparison are not contemporaneous. In effect, there is no real conflict between the learned Single Judges opinion in ANNAPURNAMMA AIR 1960 AP 359 and the decision of the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB). The ratios of these two judgments operate in wholly different fields and do not impinge upon each other. The view expressed by the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB) still continues to hold the field and there is no dissenting view expressed by a co-ordinate Bench warranting examination thereof by this Full Bench. 35. It may however be noted that an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 is not binding on the Court as it is only advisory in nature. Whether such an opinion should be admitted and how much weight should be given to it are aspects which would ultimately lie within the domain of the Court, as evidence of an expert is liable to be interp....