Short Note : Held: The finding is mainly assailed on the ground that the learned Judge committed. an error in himself comparing the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures and then coming to his own conclusion that these are the disputed signatures and then coming to his own conclusion that these are the genuine signatures of the defendant No.2. It is true that the Supreme Court in Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1967 JLJ 441 has held :- "Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person, This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to, accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness" But in the present case, the learned trial Judge on consideration of the evidence and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the disputed signatures are of the defendant No. 2 and he has satisfied himself by comparing the signatures also. So there was no error committed by the trial Judge in comparing the signatures. Revision dismissed.