Handwriting : the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding solely on comparison made by himself

Supreme Court of India
Prahlad Saran Gupta vs Bar Council Of India And Another on 26 February, 1997
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, G.B. Pattanaik
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  3588 of 1984

PETITIONER:
PRAHLAD SARAN GUPTA

RESPONDENT:
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1997

BENCH:
S.C. AGRAWAL & G.B. PATTANAIK

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 1997(2) SCR 499 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :
....
comparing the writing in the said document with the hand writing of the appellant without the assistance of the opinion of a hand writing expert and in coming Lo the conclusion that the said document was in the hand writing of the appellant. Reference, in this context, may be made to the decision in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, 11979] 1 SCR 931, wherein it has been observed:

Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted, 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, (p. 944) In bur opinion, it was not advisable for the Disciplinary Committee to base its conclusion purely on the basis of its own comparison of the hand writing, especially when the matter related to a charge of professional mis-conduct which is quasi-criminal in nature requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee holding the appellant guilty of professional mis-conduct for having prepared the draft of the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. that was served on the Union of India oil behalf of M/s. Agarwal Traders.