Disputed Signatures On Photocopy Can't Be Sent For Handwriting Examination Without Original Document: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of a document cannot be referred for scientific examination by a handwriting expert where the original has not been produced, since a photocopy does not preserve the characteristics on which a meaningful comparison of handwriting depends.
It held that the decisive consideration is whether the material proposed to be examined can furnish dependable scientific assistance, and that this assessment lies within the discretion of the authority before which the document is produced.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“If an expert is required to compare disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy with admitted signatures available on original documents, he is deprived of the very indicia which render handwriting examination scientifically meaningful. The risk of distortion, blurring, reduction, shadowing and loss of pressure marks inherent in a photocopy renders the exercise incapable of yielding dependable forensic assistance.”
The respondent moved the Rent Authority, Etah under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, seeking eviction of the petitioner from a shop. In his written statement, the petitioner relied on a rent agreement dated 22nd September 2005, notarized on 16th December 2005, said to have been executed between him and late Ansar Hussain, the respondent's predecessor-in-interest.
He pleaded that he had entered into possession under it, set up a tailoring business in the shop and continued as a tenant on payment of rent, and that sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 4 of the Act of 2021 did not apply.
During the proceedings, the petitioner applied to have the disputed signatures on the photocopy of the agreement sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of late Ansar Hussain on rent receipts and other admitted documents. His own case was that the original agreement had remained with late Ansar Hussain.
The Rent Authority rejected the application, holding that no useful purpose would be served by a comparison undertaken solely from a photocopy when the original had not been produced. The Rent Tribunal, Etah held that an expert opinion resting on a photocopy could not furnish dependable scientific assistance.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the respondent had admitted in his deposition that he could identify his deceased father's signatures, and had also admitted the initial rate of rent and the agreed mode of its enhancement. It was urged that these admissions furnished sufficient foundational material for the comparison sought, and denial of that opportunity had caused serious prejudice.
Referring to Apex Court's decision in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court noted that a handwriting expert's opinion, though a relevant fact, is advisory only. It held that the aforesaid principle assumes that the material sent for examination is itself capable of scientific scrutiny. It held that the objection in the present case was therefore not merely technical but went to the reliability of the exercise, an expert asked to work from a photocopy being deprived of the very indicia that make handwriting examination scientifically meaningful.
“A handwriting expert does not merely compare the visual appearance of letters or signatures. The exercise ordinarily involves examination of line quality, pen pressure, rhythm, speed, natural variations, pen lifts, retouching, ink flow and other microscopic characteristics which are ordinarily discernible only from the original writing. A photocopy merely reproduces the visual image of a document and inevitably obliterates these intrinsic forensic features. Consequently, an opinion founded solely upon a photocopy is inherently less dependable than one based upon the original document.”
The Court referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in T. Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh for holding that a court need not direct expert examination where the material is inherently unsuitable for reliable comparison. Since the document here was only a secondary reproduction, the Rent Authority could not be faulted for holding that the exercise would not materially assist adjudication.
On the admissions relied upon by the petitioner, the Court held that admissions are relevant evidence but do not give a party an indefeasible right to expert examination of a document unavailable in its original form. Whether a document goes for forensic examination depends on its intrinsic evidentiary worth and the feasibility of obtaining reliable scientific assistance, it held.
“No amount of admissions can dispense with the foundational requirement that the material proposed for forensic examination must itself be capable of reliable scientific scrutiny. An expert opinion cannot be directed merely to undertake a speculative exercise or to overcome the inherent limitations arising from examination of a photocopy of a disputed document.”
The Court observed that some decisions have recognised that an expert may, in exceptional cases, give an opinion on a clear photocopy, but held that they lay down no rule that every disputed photocopy must be referred for forensic examination.
It held that the refusal did not foreclose the petitioner's right to prove the alleged tenancy or its terms through other admissible evidence, including rent receipts and oral evidence.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahar Singh (Kashyap), Stuti Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Prem Chandra, Sudhanshu Kumar