🖋️ Genuine or Forged Signatures? Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling on Expert Opinion under Sections 45 & 73 of the Evidence Act
Presented by: Delhi Law Firm® — Your Trusted Legal Partner
Introduction
Sometimes an entire legal dispute hinges on a single signature. When the authenticity of that signature is questioned, the court faces a complex challenge — how to determine whether it is genuine or forged? Can a handwriting expert always be called for assistance?
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Hussain Bin Awaz vs Mittapalli Venkata Ramulu (2025) addresses this exact issue, reminding courts that “Justice is not only about the right outcome, but also about the right process.”
⚖️ Background of the Case
This case revolved around a 50-year-old land dispute. One party produced a document from 1975 claiming ownership of the property, while the opposing party alleged the signatures on that document were forged.
The trial had already concluded — all witnesses examined, arguments completed — when, just before judgment, the defendants requested that the document be sent for forensic examination.
⚖️ The Key Question — Can Late-stage Examination Be Allowed?
The Trial Court rejected this request, observing that the defendants had ample opportunity during the trial but failed to act in time. However, the High Court reversed that decision, invoking the phrase “in the interest of justice.”
The Supreme Court, however, overturned the High Court’s reasoning and clarified that “interest of justice” cannot override established legal procedure.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court held:
“Justice cannot be achieved by breaking the law. Fairness lies in adherence to due process.”
The Court elaborated on two vital provisions of the Indian Evidence Act:
- Section 45: Allows the court to seek expert opinions on matters involving handwriting, science, or art.
- Section 73: Comparison of handwriting can only be made with admitted or proved signatures.
Without an authentic specimen available for comparison, the court cannot permit an expert examination. The Supreme Court termed such an attempt as a “fishing expedition” — a baseless search for evidence after the fact.
📚 Court’s Message
The Supreme Court made it clear:
“The person who alleges forgery bears the burden to produce genuine samples for comparison.”
Mere suspicion or assumption cannot justify a forensic examination. The justice system relies on concrete, proven evidence — not speculation.
💡 The Future — From Handwriting to Digital Identity
As documents are now increasingly digital — using e-signatures, biometrics, and cryptographic verification — the concept of “admitted handwriting” will evolve. Future courts may rely on digital identity keys, fingerprints, or retina scans as the basis of authentication.
🏛️ Conclusion
- Late-stage requests for forensic examination will not be entertained.
- Expert opinion is valid only when authentic documents exist for comparison.
- The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery.
In essence: “If you claim a signature is fake, it’s your responsibility to provide a genuine sample for verification.”
💬 Need Legal Advice?
If you’re facing a case involving disputed signatures or document forgery, consult our legal experts at — 👉 www.delhilawfirm.news
Delhi Law Firm® — Legal Knowledge Made Simple.
#DelhiLawFirm #SupremeCourt2025 #EvidenceAct #Section45 #Section73 #ForgeryLaw #LegalAwareness #IndianJudiciary #CourtJudgment #LegalNews #LegalAdvice #LawBlog #IndiaLaw #JusticeSystem