JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 8905 of 2008, by which the Order Dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Election Tribunal rejecting the application of the present Respondent to send the notice allegedly bearing his signature for comparison with his admitted signature received by him from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for opinion of the handwriting expert in connection with an election dispute of Bhagabanpur Gram Panchayat under Dhamnagar Block in the district of Bhadrak was reversed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the Court is the best expert and there is no occasion for the Trial Court to make any reference for expert opinion u/s 45 of the Act and therefore the Judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the order of the Learned Court below is to be upheld. More so, he has placed a very heavy reliance on the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal that the said applicant himself has admitted that he was well aware of the said notice and his signature on the same, therefore there was no occasion for sending the documents for expert opinion. 3. We have considered the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records. 4. Evidence of identity of handwriting receives treatment in three Sections of the Act i.e. Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is not necessary. u/s 45 of the Act, the opinion of the handwriting expert may be safe. The same purpose can be served by taking opinion of a person who knows, understand and recognises the handwriting of the person who is said to be the author of the same. The third method provides u/s 73 of the Act and that is comparison by the Court with a writing made in its presence or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person. Vide Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. The third method provides u/s 73 of the Act and that is comparison by the Court with a writing made in its presence or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person. Vide Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Others, ; Ishwari Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohammad Isa, ; and Ram Chandra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, . 5. Sections 45 and 47 of the Act speaks of an opinion of the expert or of the third person. In the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In a case where an opinion is sought u/s 45 from an expert, it becomes subject to scrutiny by the Court, and has a probative value. The Court must consider the report, examine the expert and compare both the writing itself and then come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. 6. In Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326 , the Apex Court held as under: 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. 7. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and others the Apex Court held as under: ...But since the science of identification of handwriting by comparison is not an infallible one, prudence demands that before acting on such opinion the Court should be fully satisfied about the authorship of the admitted writings which is made the sole basis for comparison and the Court should also be fully satisfied about the competence and credibility of the handwriting expert.... As a rule of prudence the Court should look for corroboration before acting on such evidence.... 8. In A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar Vs. George Mascrene and Others, the Supreme Court considered the case in a election dispute as to whether certain voters had voted more than once. As a rule of prudence the Court should look for corroboration before acting on such evidence.... 8. In A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar Vs. George Mascrene and Others, the Supreme Court considered the case in a election dispute as to whether certain voters had voted more than once. Comparison of their signatures on the counter foil of the electoral rolls with their admitted signatures was in issue. The Court held that in election matters as it required expeditious disposal and the Court takes upon the task to compare the signatures, it may not be necessary to sent it for comparison of the handwriting expert. While taking such a decision reliance had been placed by the Court on its earlier Judgments in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, ; and Ram Pyaralal Shrivastava Vs. State of Bihar, . 9. In O. Bharatan Vs. K. Sudhakaran and another the Supreme Court considered a similar issue and held that it will depend on the facts of an case where the Court exercises its power for comparing the signatures or refer the matter to the expert. The Court observed: The Learned Judge in our view was not...right taking upon himself the hazardous task of adjudicating upon the genuineness and authenticity of the signatures in question even without the assistance of a skilled and trained person whose services could have been easily availed of. Annulling the verdict of popular will is as much a serious matter of grave concern to the society as enforcement of laws pertaining to criminal offences, if not more. Though it is the province of the expert to act as Judge or jury after a scientific comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, the caution administered by this Court is to the course to be adopted in such situations could not have been ignored unmindful of the serious repercussions arising out of the decision to the ultimately rendered. To quote, it has been held in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, : The matter can be viewed from another angle also. To quote, it has been held in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, : The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. 10. The opinion of handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like any other witness, still it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar for the Court to compare the signatures or handwriting using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and apply its own observation to prove the handwritings, but by doing so, the Court does not become a handwriting expert and the Court cannot play the role of an expert. For the simple reason, the opinion of the Court may not also be conclusive. Therefore, when the Court takes task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the comparison of signatures or handwritings, the Court is not taking risk of doing so, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is liable to error and especially when it is not made by one not conversant with the subject. The Court as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely on the comparison made by himself. However, if there is ad opinion whether of the expert or any witness, the Court may apply its own observation by comparing the signatures or handwritings for giving a decisive weight or influence. Vide Ala Uddin Vs. Sishir Kumar Dutta, . 11. In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, ; the Apex Court held as under: ...None is free from errors, and the judiciary does not claim infallibility. Vide Ala Uddin Vs. Sishir Kumar Dutta, . 11. In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, ; the Apex Court held as under: ...None is free from errors, and the judiciary does not claim infallibility. It is truly said that a Judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be born. Our legal system in fact acknowledges the liability of the Courts and provides for both infernal and external checks to correct the errors. The law, the jurisprudence and the precedents, the open public hearings, reasoned Judgments, appeals, revisions, references and reviews constitute the internal checks while objective critiques, debates and discussions of Judgments outside the Courts, and legislative correctives provide the external checks. Together, they go a long way to ensure judicial accountability. The law thus provides procedure to correct judicial errors. Abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and defiance are no methods to correct the errors of the Courts. 12. In Hotel Balaji and others, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. etc. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: ...To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. 13. Further, the Hon'ble Court placed reliance upon the Judgment in Pierce v. Delameter (A.M.Y. at page 18), wherein it has been observed as under: a judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn; great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead; and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors. Therefore a Judge cannot claim to be infallible. 14. In such a fact situation, it is always desirable that before the Court applies its mind for exercising its power u/s 73 of the Act, it may have the opinion of expert which may corroborate the opinion formed by the Court. 15. The Trial Court while passing the order has observed as under: In the case at hand, the signature on the notice served in the disputed case No. 680/03-04 has been disputed which has got no meaning in view of the admission of the Opposite Party himself to which he is well aware much before filing of nomination paper. That apart, the alleged signatures whether disputed or admitted, is no way relevant to the present case. 16. That apart, the alleged signatures whether disputed or admitted, is no way relevant to the present case. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not in a position to explain as if consideration of the documents which have been called by the Election Tribunal on an application filed by the Appellant under Order 13, Rule 10 C.P.C. are irrelevant and do not require to ask the expert opinion, under what circumstances these documents can be considered by the Court. In such a situation, where there is a admission otherwise regarding the said fact by the Opposite Party, the documents have to be ignored altogether and do not require any consideration whatsoever. However, Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not agree for that though without any reason except that sending the matter to the expert for opinion may cause some delay. 17. Considering such a matter, the Court must bear in mind that while dealing with an election matter it deals with the process of democratic set up of the country which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Therefore, the mandate of the majority of the people which has elected a person as its representative should not be brushed aside or ignored while considering his eligibility to contest the election. In such matter, the Court should be more conscious and should not take the risk of taking the task of comparing the handwriting upon itself and there is no harm to call for the expert opinion which admittedly has corroborative value and may assist the Court in forming its opinion. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge does not require any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed