District Judge, attempting to examine the document Exh.D1 for formulating an opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise assumed in his own understanding that the style and structure of the formation in both writings were identical.

 Perusal of the impugned in judgment shows that the learned Addl. District Judge, attempting to examine the document Exh.D1 for formulating an opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise assumed in his own understanding that the style and structure of the formation in both writings were identical. It is strange that the Forensic Expert had opined that comparison could not be made with the specimen signatures nor conclusive findings could be given on the basis thereof and that for forming an opinion the expert would require the other documents containing the specimen of the writings of Muhammad Younis but the learned Addl. District Judge by ignoring the expert view, proceeded to rely on the same specimen for his decision which in view of the expert could not be made the basis to record reliable findings and conclusions. There appeared to be no reason to ignore the expert view and if he was unable to form his opinion because of foundational reason, the learned Addl. District Judge could not ignore the same and that too without recording any valid ground for doing so. Even otherwise, the impugned order does not show any technical or specific reason for reaching the conclusion to the similarity as to signatures.

It is observed that although in law, Court is competent to examine the signatures for forming an opinion yet this exercise has never been considered to the safe or reliable, particularly, when the judgment does not reflect any good technical reasons for reaching the conclusion.

W.P. No.25342/2015
Fehmeeda Younas through LRs Versus Addl. District Judge and others