document examination

2. DOCUMENTS
This is the age of documents.
In spite of the fact that paperless
documents are already in use,
paper documents would continue
to dominate in all human
transactions for many more
centuries

3.  Identification of authorship of writing
including signatures;
 Physical and chemical examination
including study and identification of
 1) writing materials
 2) erasures, obliterations &
alterations
 3) order and age of writing or typing

4. The characteristics of writing are
determined by
1. The system of writing originally
learnt
2. The experience and conditions of
use of the hand over a period of
time.
3. The presence or absence of
physical abnormalities or defects
originating from illness, injury,
psychological variations etc.

5. All the Aforesaid Factors
Contribute to the
Development of the One
Determining Factor-the
Nerve, Muscle, Mind Reaction
Pattern or Conditioned Reflex
Pattern of the Writer

6. Characteristics of a writing
• The writing instruments, paper etc
• The position of the writer- sitting,
standing, lying, arms high or low
• Temporary physical or psychological
disturbances - excitement, fear, pain,
exhaustion, injury to the hands, poor
eye sight etc.
• Other temporary variables – writing, in
darkness or without glasses or in bad
lighting

7. WRITING
CHARACTERISTICS
 Style system
 Skill
 Alignment
 Terminals
 Spacing
 Shading
 Individual letter
characteristics
 Size/ relative
size
 Slant / relative
slant
 Line quality
 Speed

8. FORGERY
 Free hand forgery
 Free hand with distinct disguise with
little or no effort to simulate
 Simulated forgery (drawn varieties)
 Traced forgery 1) using carbon paper
and sharp instrument 2) using
tracing paper 3) using transparent
light 4) using photocopy and sharp
instrument

9. Tampering originals
 Addition
 Alteration
 Obliteration
 Erasures
Chemical erasure
Mechanical erasure

11. SIGNATURE FORGERIES
 The signature is a specialized form of
handwriting
 One SIGNS his name in this specialized
form of writing which will differ from his
WRITING his name in the normal way.
 Because of frequent use, it becomes
almost an automatic writing, reproducing
a particular pattern, distinguishing one’s
signature from the signatures of all the
others.

13. SINGAPORE SUPREME COURT CASE
 Anbu, a business man of Singapore
deposited one million dollars in Indian
Overseas Bank in the name his fiancee
living in England. For this purpose he
sent the signature specimen card to
England. The card contained two
columns, one for specimen signatures
and another for verification signatures.
The fiancee signed four signatures in
both the columns.
History of the case

14. The verification signatures should be
executed later when clients visit the
bank. The bank ignored this aspect and
opened the account. Anbu married his
fiancee. A child was born. Anbu got the
deposit transferred to his account
through a letter handwritten by him and
signed by his wife. Estrangement and
divorce. Wife returned to London.

15. She wrote to the Singapore bank
to transfer the million dollars with interest to
her London account, alleging that her
signature in the mandatory letter was forged
by Anbu . Police cases were filed in London
and Singapore. The forensic expert from
London opined that signature in the
mandatory letter was forged and that the
verification signatures were also forged with
the connivance of the Bank

16. The Singapore expert opined that the mandatory
signature as well as the verification signatures
are genuine. But during cross examination was
shaky about verification signatures for a fifty-fifty
chance. The Bank’s expert from Hongkong
opined the same way but changed his opinion in
respect of verification signatures.
Chandra Sekharan appeared as a fourth expert,
studied several earlier signatures from court
documents, passport and school certificates and
found use of human behavior science in addition
to handwriting science is necessary in this case.

23. OF

24. From passport

25. See the difference in hue of ink

26. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Suit No 1595 of 1990
Coram : The Honourable Justice
GOH JOON SENG
S.Rai for the plaintiff
Michelle Rasanayagam for the 1st Defendant
K.S.Chung for the 2nd Defendant
R.Karuppan Chettiar(with S.Lalitha) for
Third Party

27. Extract from the Judgement
 “In any case it was my finding in the forgery suit that
the letter of 23rd November 1989 referred to in that suit
as the ‘mandate’ was signed by the second defendant.
My finding there is supported by the evidence of
Professor Sekharan, a document examiner,
identifying for the third party in the trust suit.
Professor Sekharan’s views were robustly
challenged by the second defendant through Mr.
Robert Radley, a document examiner, who had also
testified for the second defendant in the forgery suit.
The additional evidence given by Mr. Radley has not
shaken the finding I reached in the forgery suit.”