(1) 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.
The question is whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in Itanagar. B is a merchant in Bengaluru, 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 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.
(2) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.
Section 41 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, addresses the relevance of opinions regarding handwriting and signatures in legal proceedings. It allows the court to consider the opinions of individuals who are familiar with the handwriting of a person when determining the authenticity of a document. Additionally, it specifies that the opinion of the Certifying Authority is relevant when assessing electronic signatures.
A1: Section 41 states that the opinion of any person acquainted with a person's handwriting is relevant when determining whether a document was written or signed by that person.
A2: A person is acquainted with another's handwriting if they have seen that person write, received documents purportedly written by that person, or habitually dealt with documents from that person in a business context.
A3: If a merchant in Itanagar is questioned about a letter's authorship, the opinions of other merchants and clerks who have interacted with letters from that merchant are relevant, even if they never saw the merchant write.
A4: The opinion of the Certifying Authority that issued an Electronic Signature Certificate is considered a relevant fact when the court evaluates the authenticity of an electronic signature.
A5: These opinions provide the court with insights from individuals familiar with the handwriting or signatures involved, aiding in determining the authenticity of documents in disputes.
- In a case concerning a letter allegedly written by a merchant, opinions from other merchants and clerks who frequently dealt with correspondence from that merchant can be used to ascertain authorship, even if they did not witness the writing process.
- For an electronic contract signed with a digital signature, the court would consider the validation opinion of the Certifying Authority to determine if the signature is genuine.
Section 41 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, establishes guidelines for evaluating opinions on handwriting and electronic signatures. It allows the court to accept the views of individuals familiar with a person's handwriting as relevant evidence, as well as the opinions of Certifying Authorities regarding electronic signatures. This framework helps ensure that the authenticity of documents is assessed accurately within legal proceedings.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
