RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 1

117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M)

Date of decision : 21.08.2025

JASPAL SINGH ....Appellant

Versus

RANJIT SINGH .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. M.S. Khaira, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with

Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate

for the respondent.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of the judgments and

decrees passed by the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff

seeking recovery of 3,00,000/- along with interest, stands decreed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their

original position before the Court of the First Instance i.e., the appellant as

‘defendant’ and the respondent as ‘plaintiff’.

3. Plaintiff filed suit claiming that an amount of 3,00,000/- was

lent by him to defendant on the basis of promissory note dated 22.08.2005

executed by defendant. He thus prayed for recovery of the amount along

with interest.

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 2

4. The suit was contested by the defendant denying execution of

the promissory note. It was further claimed that the scribe is brother-in-law

of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in fact nurses a grudge against defendant because of

the rejection of the proposed marriage between the daughter of the plaintiff

and the son of the defendant.

5. Plaintiff in order to prove execution of the promissory note,

examined one of the attesting witnesses and scribe.

6. Defendant in order to prove that the promissory note was not

executed by him, examined handwriting expert Inderjit Singh, who appeared

as DW2.

7. The Courts below after analysing the evidence threadbare came

to the conclusion that the plaintiffs successfully proved execution of the

promissory note. There is a receipt (Exhibit P-2) acknowledging the receipt

of money and thus decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

8. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by

the Courts below. He submits that plaintiff having propounded promissory

note, dated 22.08.2005, was required to prove the same. He submits that

once defendant denied his signatures on the same, plaintiff was required to

prove signatures of the defendant on the promissory note by leading cogent

evidence. No evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove that the document

bears signatures of the defendant whereas, defendant examined handwriting

expert, who proved his report to the effect that the signatures on the

promissory note, were not that of defendant. He thus submits that plaintiff

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 3

having failed to discharge his onus, Courts below erred in decreeing the suit

filed by the plaintiff.

9. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Khaira, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for

the defendant would submit that plaintiff proved execution of promissory

note by examining attesting witness as well as scribe of the promissory note.

Receipt, Exhibit P-2, was proved. Apart from taking a false stand that the

document was not signed by defendant, defendant failed to lead any cogent

evidence to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff as contemplated

under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He further

submits that the Courts below have rightly discarded the report given by

hand-writing expert and have gone by their own analysis to hold that the

promissory note bears the signatures of defendant. He thus submits that

Courts below have rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

10. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone

through records of the case.

11. As per law, the promissory note was required to be proved by

plaintiff. In order to discharge his onus, plaintiff examined attesting witness

and scribe thereof. Defendant in order to dispute his signatures, examined

handwriting expert. Courts below discarded the report of the handwriting

expert and resorted to Section 72 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

analyzed the signatures on the promissory note to hold that the same bears

the signatures of defendant.

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 4

12. Execution of Document required by law to be attested needs to

be proved by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses (Section 67 of

the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). In cases where handwriting/

signatures of the executant are disputed, the same can be proved either:

(1) by the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section

39) or;

(2) by the evidence of a witness acquainted with the

handwriting of the person who is said to have

written the disputed writing (Section 41); or

(3) opinion formed by the Court itself on comparison

made of the disputed writings with the admitted or

specimen writings (Section 72).

13. Courts below in the present case resorted to the third mode

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 re-enacted as Section 72 of

BSA 2023. Trite it is that the science of identification of handwriting by

comparison being not an infallible one. Before donning the hat of an expert

himself under Section 72 of BSA 2023, the Court needs to be fully satisfied

of the admitted writings which are made the basis for comparison.

14. After considering legislative background of Section 73,

Supreme Court of India spelled out thereof in the case of ‘State (Delhi

Admn.) vs. Pali Ram’, (1979) 2 SCC 158, observing as under:

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 5

“33. Since even where proof of handwriting which is in nature

comparison, exists, a duty is cast on the Court to use its own eyes

and mind to compare the admitted writing with the disputed one to

verify and reach its own conclusion, it will not be wrong to say that

when a Court seized of a case, directs an accused person present

before it to write down a sample writing, such direction in the

ultimate analysis, "is for the purpose of enabling the Court to

compare" the writing so written with the writing alleged to have

been written by such person, within the contemplation of Section

73. That is to say, the words "for the purpose of enabling the Court

to compare" do not exclude the use of such 'admitted' or sample

writing for comparison with the alleged writing of the accused, by

a handwriting expert cited as a witness by any of the parties. Even

where no such expert witness is cited or examined by either party,

the Court may, if it thinks necessary for the ends of justice, on its

own motion, call an expert witness, allow him to compare the

sample writing with the alleged writing and thus give his expert

assistance to enable the Court to compare the two writings and

arrive at a proper conclusion.

34. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion that in

passing the orders dated May 20, 1972 relating to the disposal of

the application dated December 11, 1970, the learned Additional

District Magistrate did not exceed his powers under Section 73,

Evidence Act. The learned Judges of the High Court were not right

in holding that in directing the accused by his said order dated May

20, 1972, the Magistrate acted beyond the scope of Section 73 or in

a manner which was not legal.”

15. In the case of ‘State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh,

(1992) 3 SCC 700, it was observed that:

“29.xxxxxxxxxx It is indeed true that by nature and habit, over

a period of time, each individual develops certain traits which give

a distinct character to his writings making it possible to identify the

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 6

author but it must at the same time be realised that since hand

writing experts are generally engaged by one of the contesting

parties they, consciously or unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of

an opinion which is helpful to the party engaging him. That is why

we come across cases of conflicting opinions given by two

handwriting experts engaged by opposite parties. It is, therefore,

necessary to exercise extra care and caution in evaluating their

opinion before accepting the same. So Courts have as a rule of

prudence refused to place implicit faith on the opinion evidence of

a handwriting expert. Normally Courts have considered it

dangerous to base a conviction solely on the testimony of a

handwriting expert because such evidence is not regarded as

conclusive. Since such opinion evidence cannot take the place of

substantive evidence, Courts have, as a rule of prudence, looked

for corroboration before acting on such evidence. True it is, there is

no rule of law that the evidence of a handwriting expert cannot be

acted upon unless substantially corroborated but Courts have been

slow in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence, without

more, because of the imperfect nature of the science of

identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility. There is

no absolute rule of law or even of prudence which has ripened into

a rule of law that in no case can the Court base its findings solely

on the opinion of a handwriting expert but the imperfect and frail

nature of the science of identification of the author by comparison

of his admitted handwriting with the disputed ones has placed a.

heavy responsibility on the Courts to exercise" extra care and

caution before acting on such opinion. Before a Court can place

reliance on the opinion of an expert, it must be shown that he has

not betrayed any bias and the reasons on which he has based his

opinion are convincing and satisfactory. It is for this reason that the

Courts are wary to act solely on the evidence of a handwriting

expert; that, however, does not mean that even if there exist

numerous striking peculiarities and mannerisms which stand out to

identify the writer, the Court will not act on the expert's evidence.

In the end it all depends on the character of the evidence of the

expert and the facts and circumstances of each case.

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 7

30.xxxxxxxx

What emerges from the case law referred to above is that a

handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence

is recognised as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act

and has not been equated to, the class of evidence of an

accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion

evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to

weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion

would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is

founded. But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the

science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail

one as compared to the science of identification of finger-prints;

courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on

such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that

is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general application

regardless of the eircumstances of the case and the quality of

expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this

behalf but the Court has to decide in each case on its own merits

what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. While dealing with the situation of denial of signatures by the

alleged executant Supreme Court in ‘K.S. Satyanarayana vs. V.R.

Narayana Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 104, observed that:

“7. A piquant situation had developed before the trial court

when the Ist defendant denied his signatures on the written

statement and Vakalatnama in favour of his counsel. Trial court

should have immediately probed into the matter. It should have

recorded statement of the counsel for the Ist defendant to find out

if Vakalatanama in his favour and written statement were not

signed by the Ist defendant whom he represented. It was apparent

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 8

that the Ist defendant was trying to get out of the situation when

confronted with his signatures on the Vakalatnama and the written

statement and his having earlier denied his signatures on Exh.P-1

and Exh.P-2 in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. Falsehood

of the claim of the Ist defendant was writ large on the face of it.

Trial Court could have also compared the signatures of the Ist

defendant as provided in section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

xxx”

17. In the case of ‘Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC

583’ explaining the interplay between Section 45 and Section 73 of the 1872

Act, Supreme Court held that:

“12. Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in

short 'the Evidence Act') deal with opinion of experts and

comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or

proved. Section 45 itself provides that the opinions are relevant

facts. It is a general rule that the opinion of witnesses possessing

peculiar skill is admissible. There was no challenge to the expertise

of V.K. Sakhuja. He deposed to have testified in about ten

thousand cases relating to disputed documents. Though the

employee highlighted certain adverse remarks, it cannot be lost

sight of that they were about four decades back. But we need not

go into that aspect in detail as no infirmity in the report acted upon

by the authority in the present case was noticed or could be pointed

out.

13. It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the

Evidence Act, the Court has to take a view on the opinion of

others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the Court by its

own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the

identity of handwriting is dealt with in three Sections of the

Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under

Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 9

is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of

familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences.

In both the cases, the Court is required to satisfy itself by such

means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon.

Irrespective of an opinion of the Handwriting Expert, the Court can

compare the admitted writing with disputed writing and come to its

own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is

permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily,

Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of

Handwriting Expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for

the Court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated

evidence or not. It is clear that even when experts' evidence is not

there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the

matter. [See Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC

704].

xxx xxx xxx

16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objection in

criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are

altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the

preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such

conduct as would merit action against him; whereas in criminal

proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against

him are established and if established what sentence should be

imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the modes of enquiry

and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually

different. [See State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and ors., 1996(4)

SCT 708 (SC) : (1996) 6 SCC 417)]. In case of disciplinary

enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The

doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application.

Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are

necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent

has committed misconduct.”

(emphasis supplied)

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 10

18. In the case of ‘O. Bharathan vs. K. Sudhakaran’, (1996) 2

SCC 704 Supreme Court red flagged the practice of courts acting as experts

even though Section 73 of 1872 Act empowers them, observing that:

“18. The learned Judge in our view was not right either in

brushing aside the principles laid down by this Court in AIR 1979

Supreme Court 14 (supra) on the ground that it was not a criminal

case or taking upon himself the hazardous task of adjudicating

upon the genuineness and authenticity of the signatures in question

even without the assistance of skilled and trained person whose

services could have been easily availed of. Annulling the verdict of

popular will is as much a serious matter of grave concern to the

society as enforcement of laws pertaining to criminal offence, if

not more. Though it is the province of the expert to act as Judge or

jury after a scientific comparison of the disputed signatures with

admitted signatures, the caution administered by this Court is to

the course to be adopted in such situations could not have been

ignored unmindful of the serious repercussions arising out of the

decision to be ultimately rendered. To quote, it has been held in

AIR 1979 Supreme Court 14 (supra):

"The matter can be viewed from another angle also.

Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own

eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted

writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any

handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of

prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with

regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the

sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person

accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by

himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should

take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted

writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two

agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain

the opinion and assistance of an expert."

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 11

19. The necessity for adhering to the said sound advise and

guidance is all the more necessary in a case where hundreds of

signatures are disputed and the striking dissimilarities noticed by

the Court at the time of trial of the Election Petition.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. Same sentiment finds echo in ‘Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State

of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406’ where while dealing with the provisions

of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, Supreme Court observed that

courts should be slow to base their findings solely on comparison made by

it, observing that :

“28. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to

error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed

aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from

comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to

compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then

from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings

to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the

Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must

refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason

that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive.

Therefore, when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and

findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of

signatures or handwritings, the Court must keep in mind the risk

involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be

conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise

is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court,

therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be

slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it.

However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 12

witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by

comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive

weight or influence to its decision.”

20. Similar view has been expressed in the case of ‘A. Srinivasulu

vs. State of T.N.’ (2023) 13 SCC 705 wherein Supreme Court held that:

“137. For invoking Section 73, there must first have been some

signature or writing admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the

Court, to have been written or made by that person. The Section

empowers the Court also to direct any person present in Court to

write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to

compare the words or figures.”

21. Thus, the following legal proposition emerges from the afore

discussed views expressed in binding precedents:

(A) In cases where handwriting is disputed, the same can be

proved either:

(1) by the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section 39 of

BSA 2023) or;

(2) by the evidence of a witness acquainted with the

handwriting of the person who is said to have written the

disputed writing (Section 41 of BSA 2023); or

(3) opinion formed by the Court itself on comparison made

of the dispute writings with the admitted or specimen

writings (Section 72 of BSA 2023);

(B) the science of identification of handwriting by

comparison is not an infallible one;

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 13

(C) the opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible like that of

any other witness, and yet, it cannot be just brushed aside

as useless. The court while analysing the opinion of

expert may apply its own observation by comparing the

signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive

weight or influence to its decision

(D) there is no legal bar preventing the court from comparing

signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to

compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing.;

(E) the court, as a matter of prudence and caution should

hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the

comparison made by it;

(F) for the purpose of comparison of handwriting by court or

by expert, existence of admitted handwriting is sine qua

non;

(G) the opinion formed by the court is also susceptible to

error and is not conclusive. It is also to be considered

only as a corroborative piece of cogent evidence and not

relied upon;

(H) the court cannot simply conclude that it has seen the

signatures and finds it to be or doesn’t find the same to

be that of executant. Once Court decides to adorn the hat

of an expert, the opinion expressed by court has to be

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 14

backed by reasons. It cannot be merely conclusions

without being backed by reasons. In cases where court

assumes role of comparing signatures, he can seek

assistance of an expert.

22. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the present case, this

Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court after comparing the signatures of

the defendant on the promissory note with the admitted signatures on

vakalatnama, concluded as under:

“17. Upon weighting the evidence led by both the parties, I find

that the plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to establish the due

execution of the pronote inasmuch as apart from examining

himself, he has examined both the attesting witnesses and the

scribe, who have all lent corroboration to the testimony of the

plaintiff regarding execution of pronote dated 22.8.2005 and

regarding receipt of Rs. Three lacs by the defendant. Nothing

substantial ould be elicited during the course of cross- examination

of aforesaid witnesses. The defendant has attempted to make a dent

in the case of the plaintiff by asserting that the pronote does not

bear his signatures. In order to hammer forth the said assertions,

the defendant is mainly banking upon the evidence of Hand

Writing Expert i.e. DW2 Inderjit Singh. Upon perusal of

signatures of defendant as is existing on the pronote and by

comparing the same with naked eye with the signatures of

defendant as existing on the Vakalatnama and on the affidavit

tendered in the court, I do find that there is some distinction in the

same. However, it cannot be ruled out that a deliberate attempt

may have been made he stepped in the court SO as to avoid his

liability. It is not uncommon that hand writing expert do have

tendency to depose in favour of their pay master. In any case, this

court does not find any ground to discard the testimony of two

RSA-2410-2012 (O&M) 15

attesting witnesses and the scribe. There is nothing on record to

show that they had any enmity with the defendant so as to have

deposed falsely.”

23. Evidently, the conclusion arrived at is backed by reasons

recorded. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the well

reasoned findings recorded by the courts below.

24. So far as the issue of scribe being close relative of plaintiff is

concerned, the argument raised is without merit. The moment scribe entered

into witness-box, the plea that he is a close relative of plaintiff, lost its sting.

His testimony cannot be brushed aside merely referring to his relation with

the plaintiff once he has offered himself for cross-examination and has

successfully withstood the test thereof. Counsel could not point out any

infirmity in the testimony of scribe

25. Pure findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below.

Finding no question of law in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be

dismissed.

26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

August 21, 2025 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes