In the case of State (Delhi Administration) v Pali Ram, Sarkaria J. considered the various sections of the Indian Evidence Act which contains provisions similar to that of Malaysia. The judge held that the Indian Evidence Act recognizes two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a person. First, by an admission of the person who wrote it and secondly, by the evidence of some witness who saw it written.
These are the best methods of proof, however, there are three other modes of proof by opinion. They are, by the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section 45), by the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is said to have written the writing in question. (Section 47) and last but not least, opinion formed by the Court on comparison made by itself. (Section 73)
It is not proper to attempt making any conclusion on the genuineness of a signature in a document by comparing two similar handwritings without resorting to the opinion of a handwriting expert who is specialised in this field. The requirement becomes incumbent when the handwriting is in Chinese characters in which the Judge in question has no knowledge whatever (per Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ, Chu Choon Moi v Ngan Sew Tin at page 36).
As a conclusion, in order to test the veracity of the opinion of a handwriting expert, the court must apply its own observation to be admitted or proved writings and compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the opinion of the expert. The court has to satisfy itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion of an expert bearing in mind it is not conclusive. On the other hand, if the court after examining the disputed signature with the genuine signature also comes to the same conclusion as that of the expert, the court shall not be acting as an expert. (Nik Mahmood Bin Nik Mat v Chew Kam Leong)