RAJ KISHORE DASH Vs. RAMANIRANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 8905 of 2008, by which the Order Dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Election Tribunal rejecting the application of the present Respondent to send the notice allegedly bearing his signature for comparison with his admitted signature received by him from the Registrar, Co -operative Societies for opinion of the handwriting expert in connection with an election dispute of Bhagabanpur Gram Panchayat under Dhamnagar Block in the district of Bhadrak was reversed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the Court is the best expert and there is no occasion for the Trial Court to make any reference for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act and therefore the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the order of the Learned Court below is to be upheld. More so, he has placed a very heavy reliance on the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal that the said applicant himself has admitted that he was well aware of the said notice and his signature on the same, therefore there was no occasion for sending the documents for expert opinion.

(3.) EVIDENCE of identity of handwriting receives treatment in three Sections of the Act i.e. Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is not necessary. Under Section 45 of the Act, the opinion of the handwriting expert may be safe. The same purpose can be served by taking opinion of a person who knows, understand and recognises the handwriting of the person who is said to be the author of the same. The third method provides under Section 73 of the Act and that is comparison by the Court with a writing made in its presence or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person. Vide Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee : AIR1964SC529 ; Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa : [1963]3SCR722 ; and Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1957CriLJ559 .