Law Maker

CHAPTER II.––OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS · OPINIONS OF THIRD PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT

Section 47: Opinion as to hand-writing, when relevant

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (repealed)

Repealed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024.

When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Explanation.––A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.

Illustration

The question is, whether a given letter is in the hand-writing of A, a merchant in London.

B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B’s clerk whose duty it was to examine and file B’s correspondence. D is B’s broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon.

The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.

Now in the BSA

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.BSA 41(1)

Questions on this section

1 question in 4 of our papers cite Section 47. Try these from the free papers:

  1. 1. The question is whether a letter was written by P, a trader in Kochi. Q, a trader in Jaipur, has for years written letters to P and received replies purporting to be from P. R is Q's clerk whose duty is to examine and file Q's correspondence. S is Q's cousin, to whom Q once showed a single letter from P at a family function. None of Q, R and S has ever seen P write. Under Section 41 of the BSA, whose opinion as to P's handwriting is relevant?

Practise questions on Criminal Law