A judge comparing signatures personally is as good as an expert's opinion.

Courts, including the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), have cautioned that a judge's own comparison is risky and should not be the only basis for a decision, especially in criminal cases, without supporting expert evidence.

The genuine sample used for comparison must have already been proved for the same case or purpose.

The provision specifically allows using a signature, writing, or seal proved genuine for any other purpose, not necessarily connected to the current dispute.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 72

Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved

(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.§

(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.§

(3) This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.§

Why this exists

Disputes over forged signatures, fake documents, or denied handwriting are common in both civil and criminal cases. Before modern forensic labs existed, courts needed a legal basis to examine handwriting themselves or through witnesses by comparing disputed material against known genuine samples. This provision, carried forward from Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, gives courts that power directly, including the ability to obtain a fresh writing sample in court and to extend the same logic to fingerprint comparison, which became increasingly important with the rise of fingerprint-based identification.

How courts read it

In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980), the Supreme Court held that a judge is not barred from comparing signatures or handwriting personally under this kind of provision, but cautioned that such comparison is risky and should not ordinarily be the sole basis for a conviction without corroboration from an expert opinion or other evidence. Courts have generally treated judicial comparison as a permissible but weak form of evidence, to be used carefully and preferably alongside expert testimony.

Common misconceptions

Myth: A judge comparing signatures personally is as good as an expert's opinion.
Fact: Courts, including the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), have cautioned that a judge's own comparison is risky and should not be the only basis for a decision, especially in criminal cases, without supporting expert evidence.
Myth: The genuine sample used for comparison must have already been proved for the same case or purpose.
Fact: The provision specifically allows using a signature, writing, or seal proved genuine for any other purpose, not necessarily connected to the current dispute.