Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar A. K. A. Ajeet Talreja vs Ranjeet Rai on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600
1 MP-6135-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6135 of 2025
AJAY KUMAR A. K. A. AJEET TALREJA
Versus
RANJEET RAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the Petitioner.
ORDER
The present Petition has been filed by the Plaintiff challenging the Order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act whereby the Petitioner/Plaintiff had sought permission to get the questioned Power of Attorney examined by handwriting expert as regards signatures contained therein from the photocopy of the questioned Power of Attorney.
2. It is the case of Petitioner/Plaintiff that he has filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed. The sale deed is alleged to be executed by a person projecting himself to be the Power of Attorney of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and he executed a sale deed on the strength of this allegedly forged Power of Attorney dated 21.02.1997. The said alleged Power of Attorney has been impleaded as defendant No.1. However, the said Power of Attorney has not chosen to appear before the Trial Court and Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 2 MP-6135-2025 has been proceeded ex parte.
3. It is contended that the Petitioner/Plaintiff is not in possession of the original thereof and the original must have been in possession of the alleged Power of Attorney i.e, defendant No.1. The Petitioner has obtained the certified copy of Power of Attorney from the Office of Registrar which was submitted alongwith execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 substantively acting as Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner. It is argued that the original is not in possession and power of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and it must be in possession of the defendant No.1 who has been proceeded ex parte. It cannot therefore, be called before the Court and the Petitioner wants to take defence of his signatures on the Power of Attorney being forged and there is no other means for the same except the signatures on the photo copy of the Power of Attorney for examining the questioned signatures with admitted and standard signatures.
4. Upon considering this assertion of learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the actual Power of Attorney was executed in the year 1997 whereas a sale deed on the strength of the same was executed in the year 2006 by the defendant No.1 whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2014.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner when faced with query of the Court that whether any criminal action has been taken by the Petitioner against the alleged Power of Attorney holder who has executed sale deed in favour of third parties by allegedly posing himself as Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was not in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 3 MP-6135-2025 position to tender any reply.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R.No.2047/2018 (Jasbir Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Others) to contend that examination of signatures can take place also from the photocopy of the document.
7. However, all these issues have already been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No.5168/2023 (Bhupesh Agrawal Vs. S.M. Choudhary & Another) and even the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) has been considered by the coordinate bench and it has been held by the coordinate bench that expert opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) has been distinguished after due consideration. The coordinate bench in M.P.No.5168/2023 has held as under:-
"7. Identical controversy came earlier before this Court in three cases and coordinate benches of this Court held that expert opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document.
(i) In the case of Mahesh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
"The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the document which was photocopy of the original cannot be sent for opinion to the handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 reads as under:-
"45. Opinions of experts- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in question as to identity of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 4 MP-6135-2025 handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."
For the purpose of summoning report of expert, it is necessary that document must be original because the petitioner submitted the photocopy of the document hence, in my opinion the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. However, if there is some original document available with the petitioner which was written by the deceased, the petitioner can very well submit an application before the Court for calling the report of handwriting expert."
(ii) In the case of Aneesh Kumar Dhakre (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
"10. Learned trial Court has held that except affidavit (Ex.D-
1), other documents, namely Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are not original documents, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in section 45 of the Evidence Act only Ex.D-1 can be admitted for the opinion of an expert. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned trial Court has erred in not accepting the documents Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 on the ground that their originals were not filed and are not on record.
11. There is no denial to the fact that documents Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are not in original and also to the finding of the learned trial Court that as per the provisions of law, an expert can examine the handwriting and thumb impression only from the original documents. It is admitted position that Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 are the certified copies and not the original documents. It is seen that petitioners did not make any attempt to move an application before the Court for production of original documents from which certified copies of Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 have been issued, and therefore, in absence of original documents before the learned trial Court, the trial Court was right in rejecting the application under section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of handwriting/thumb impression on the documents Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4."
(iii) Similarly in the case of Abhay Jain (supra), another coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 5 MP-6135-2025 "45.While considering the question as to whether hand writing expert can give opinion on the basis of photocopy, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh replied in Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao and Ors AIR 2006 AP 314 that:
5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature mark on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.
46.In the case of Paramesh Chandra Sen (Deceased) and Anr.
Vs. Sanjukta Mukherjee AIR 2017 Cal 254 the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view.
47.Even otherwise opinion of handwriting or finger print expert is a weak type of evidence. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the probative value of opinion of the hand writing expert and as to what weightage should be given to it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined in S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4486 that evidence of handwriting expert is only opinion evidence and not conclusive. It cannot be relied upon, unless corroborated by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
48.Thus, the law is clear that the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant but not conclusive. It is a fragile type of evidence. It is only corroborative evidence. It's probative value is that only on the basis of expert opinion no conclusion can be drawn if there is no other supportive evidence. It is to be accepted with good amount of circumspection.
49.It is also clear that it cannot be ascertained as to whether the testator signed the Will or not only on the basis of expert opinion based on photocopies of the Will and if it cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 6 MP-6135-2025 established, there is no reason to prosecute the accused persons.
50.Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgement passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Narayandas vs. Smt. Sushiladevi and others passed in MCRC No.8080/2014. In this case the learned Court has framed the question for consideration that "whether the handwriting expert's report based on photocopy of the disputed document cannot be considered as an evidence?" In this case reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in Bheri Nageswara Rao (supra) in which it is held that report of expert based on photocopy of document cannot be relied upon; therefore, this judgement is of no assistance for the Respondents.
51.In the case in hand, the handwriting or the finger print experts have not made any efforts to get the photographs from the original Will even when the same was easily available in the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 himself, therefore, the comparative signatures on the photocopy of a document, does not become a reliable source of comparison with the disputed signature or thumb impression. The opinion of the experts based on examination on photocopy is not in accordance with the science of handwriting examination. Therefore, in my opinion, the reports and expert opinions cannot be given weightage and are liable to be rejected on this point itself. Conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of such reports. Further, no other corroboration of these reports is available in the record and in that situation no other result but the acquittal can be recorded. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioners on such basis is nothing but an abuse of process of law."
8. Upon arising similar controversy, a coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Narender Kumar vs. The Mgmt. of M/s Maman Chand Ramji Das, 2023 0 Supreme (Del) 1844 = 2023(3) AD(Del) 282, followed the decision of this Court in the case of Abhay Jain (supra) & held as under :
"31. It is pertinent to refer the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Abhay Jain v. State of M.P. reported Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 7 MP-6135-2025 as 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1839 wherein it was observed that examination carried out by an expert must be based upon the original document, rather than examining the xerox copy of the same.
"29. The expert should form opinion on the basis of study of original document. The reason being that the pressure points are analyzed by the hand writing expert for which original are required. In the absence of original documents, the analysis of a questioned document is limited to the features that survive the copying process. This is like to identify a person behind a cloudy window; the basics are there, but details are missing. What we call the "three-dimensionality"
of the original document is lost. Not to mention that if the copy is a copy of a copy, the details become increasingly difficult to verify.
44. Originals are always the best evidence. For a more productive result, both questioned and admitted documents should be in original.
45. While considering the question as to whether hand writing expert can give opinion on the basis of photocopy, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh replied in Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao, AIR 2006 AP 314 that:
"5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature mark on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis."
32. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. CBI reported as (2017) 5 SCC 817 touched upon the issue of reliability of the expert opinion in handwriting dispute matters. Relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 8 MP-6135-2025 below:
"47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused that the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum were forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms Aradhana and Mrs Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence."
33. In view of the aforementioned judgments, it can be deduced that the report of the handwriting expert remains questionable and unreliable since the same is based on the examination carried upon xerox documents. Ergo, this court Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 9 MP-6135-2025 is hesitant to accept the expert opinion and to form an opinion solely and primarily on basis of the report. As discussed in detail in Abhay Jain (supra), that level of certainty of an expert opinion is adversely affected when the examination is done on copies of the original. Reasons and factors like loss of detailing, patching, fraudulent manipulation, paper etc. cannot be properly assessed and examined by the expert when only xerox copy is available to him/her. This Court holds the expert opinion/report as an unreliable source of comparison and hereby attaches no evidentiary value to the same in the present dispute."
(ii) The same view was taken by another coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sunayna Sabharwal and another vs. State NCT of Delhi and others, 2024 SCC Online Del 6841 and held as under:-
"15. The petitioner has claimed that this official illustration does not bear her signatures. However, the onus was on her to prove that the signatures were forged. In the absence of the original documents, the Court could not have given any finding by comparing the signatures on photocopy with her original signatures. It is settled law that unless there are signatures in the original, the comparison is inevitably not possible on the basis of vague, faint or photocopied signatures. The learned M.M. has, therefore, rightly observed that there was no cogent evidence led to prove that the official illustration had her forged signatures. Additionally, no endeavour whatsoever had been made by the petitioners to summon the originals to be placed on record. It has been rightly concluded that no offence is disclosed from the evidence led by the petitioner."
9. Similar controversy arose before coordinate Benches of Andhra Pradesh High Court. Then firstly in the case of Bheri Nageswara Rao vs. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao, AIR 2006 AP 314, the Court held as under :-
"5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600
10 MP-6135-2025 signature mark on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.
6. It is rather surprising that the trial Court did not undertake any discussion, worth its name, and simply allowed the application. Except that the trial Court named the hand writing expert, it did not add a word, touching on the merits or demerits of the matter. The order reads as under:
"Heard. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be allowed to send Ex.P.13 and P.15 to Mr. Ashok Kashyap for examination with admitted and specimen signatures of first respondent."
The trial Court ought to have exhibited little more attention to the matter.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 1387 of 2005 shall stand dismissed. It is made clear that in case, respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of any original documents of Exs. B.13 and B.15, it shall be open to them to renew the request. Since the suit is of the year 1999, it cannot brook any further delay. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same, within a period of one (1) month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
(ii) In another decision a coordinate Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of T. Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online AP 3670, held as under :-
"18. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that, comparison of signature of the Tahsildar on the Photostat copy of the patta with the signature of the Tahsildar in the D.K. Registrer physically by the second respondent without affording any opportunity is a serious illegality. A finding is recorded by the second respondent that, on Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 11 MP-6135-2025 comparison of the signature of the Tahsildar on Photostat copy of the patta with the signature of Tahsildar in D.K. Register, they are not tallying with each other. Such power to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature is conferred on the Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, but not on the administrative authorities. In addition to that, a Photostat copy is a copy taken from mechanical process. If the entries are shown accurately as in the original patta, there is a possibility of arriving at such conclusion. But, the mechanical process does not show the accuracy on account of blurred signatures/defective photo copying. Therefore, such comparison is impermissible under law, as there is every possibility of change of signatures due to passage of time and there is every possibility to sign on the documents in disguise, so as to obtain a favourable opinion from the handwriting expert. But, what is required as per law is that, any authentic contemporaneous document containing signatures of the parties has to be referred along with the disputed signatures for comparison and opinion."
10. Recently, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has also, in the case of Deeplok Financial Services Limited vs. Tata Iron & Steel Company and Others, 2025 SCC Online Cal 3314, taken the same view as under :-
"28. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 5-series has argued that since the plaintiff relied on a photocopy of a transfer deed, the falsity of the signatures thereof ought to have been proved by the plaintiff by calling for experts. However, such contention cannot be accepted, since a photocopy cannot be the premise of comparison of signatures. Since the purported deed of transfer stood in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no. 5-series, it was the incumbent duty of the said respondents to prove the execution of the same by calling for proper witnesses and/or at Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 12 MP-6135-2025 least to call authorised persons from the defendant no. 2/registry to substantiate that the specimen signature of the Directors of the appellant- Company lying in the records of the defendant no. 2 were compared with the purported signatures on the transfer deed(s)."
11. A coordinate Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court also, in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Dalveer Kaur, AIR 2019 P&H 66, had taken the same view and held as under:-
"17. Another reason for non-suiting of the plaintiff was that though the plaintiff had examined a document expert but since he had compared the alleged signatures of the defendant from the photostat copy with the standard signatures, the same could not be done. The relevant authorities in that regard cited by learned counsel for the parties have been discussed. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that no reliance can be placed upon the report of document expert since the signatures could not be compared from the photostat copy."
It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Gurdial Singh (supra), the Court has also distinguished the decision given in the case of Harbans Singh v. Jagir Singh, 2006 (1) PLJ 84, on the basis of which another coordinate Bench of same High Court had given the decision in the case of Dharam Singh v. Labh Singh and others (supra). Apparently, the decision in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) is in same line, in which the decision was rendered in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). As such, both the decisions do not provide any help to the petitioners.
12. Although in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), two coordinate Benches of Punjab and Haryana High Court, have held that photocopy of a document can be subjected to expert opinion, if the signatures/thumb impressions appearing on the document are apparent, 11 M.P. No. 5168 of 2023 but in both the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62600 13 MP-6135-2025 decisions, aforementioned previous decisions were not taken into consideration. At the same time it is pertinent to mention here that concurrent view of this Court as well as of Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta and even of Punjab and Haryana High Court is that, expert opinion cannot be sought on the basis of photocopy of a document.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by trial Court dismissing the petitioners/defendants' application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking permission of expert opinion in respect of photocopy of the MOU.
8. In view of above, since this Court does not find any good ground to take any different from the view already taken by a coordinate this High Court, it is clear that expert examination of signatures of a document cannot be carried out on the basis of photocopy. Therefore, no error is found in the impugned Order passed by the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE veni Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 12/8/2025 2:17:10 PM