[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Meena vs Smt Urmila Malviya on 23 March, 2026
1 MP-1803-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1803 of 2026
JAGDISH MEENA
Versus
SMT URMILA MALVIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jagat Singh - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Amit Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
24.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has allowed
the application of the defendant under Section 39 of Bhartiya Shakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 and upon application of the defendants has allowed to call
expert report as to the signatures as appearing on the document Annexure P-
4 placed before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the application
was too soon in the Trial because till now, even the Plaintiff has not led his
evidence and it is for the Plaintiff to prove the document in the manner the
Plaintiff wishes.
3. Upon considering the aforesaid, it is seen that there is no straight
jacket formula as to the stage on which the application under Section 39 of
Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2025 is to be filed. It is settled in law that
2 MP-1803-2026
once the issue involves comparison of signatures and handwriting, then it is
always appropriate for the Court to call for expert's report.
4. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram reported in 1979 (2) SCC 158 ,
theHon'ble Supreme Court held that prudence requires that a Judge shall
obtain expert opinion in the matters of comparison of handwriting. The
relevant paragraph is extracted below:
"30. 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."
5. In Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka reported in 1997 (7)
SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is even
slightestof doubt in the mind of the Judge, while comparing the admitted
anddisputed signatures, such signatures shall be sent for expert opinion
underSection 45 of the Act, 1872. The Apex Court held as under:
"37. This section consists of two parts. While the first part
provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing
etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or
writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to
have been written by the same person, the second part empowers
the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in
3 MP-1803-2026
Court, to give his specimen writing or fingerprints for the purpose
of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature
allegedly made by that person. The section does not specify by
whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the
other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may
either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by
anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as
provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.
38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court
should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of
comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted
signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt,
leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean
that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature
with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under
Section 73 of the Act."
6. In Thiruvengadam pillai v. Navaneethammal, reported in 2008 (4)
SCC 530, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is risky to arrive at a
conclusion regarding signatures and handwriting, without an expert opinion.
It was held as under :-
"16. While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed
handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted
handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by
Court without the assistance of any expert, has always been
considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is
no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with
the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can
record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an
analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression
and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in
the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb
impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a
4 MP-1803-2026
finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked
differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed
thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a
valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has
put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the
disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are
clear and where the Court is in a position to identify the
characteristics of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on
comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where
the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the
Court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal."
7. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (12) SCC 406 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court while dealing with
handwriting or signatures, cannot itself act as an Expert. It was held as under
:-
"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,
5 MP-1803-2026
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 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."
8. Therefore, no indulgence is warranted in the impugned Order
passed by the Trial Court. This Court is only inclined to observe that if the
report is adverse to the Petitioner, then the Petitioner at his instance would
also be at liberty to file an application for calling a competing handwriting
expert's report.
9. With the aforesaid liberty, the Petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
