Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant.
What this section does
When a court must determine who wrote or signed a document, the opinion of any person acquainted with that person's handwriting is a relevant fact. Acquaintance may arise from having seen the person write, from correspondence, or from habitual business dealings. For electronic signatures, the opinion of the issuing Certifying Authority is also relevant.
AI-generated plain-language summary. For the binding statutory text, see India Code (official).
The rule in one line
Opinion of a person acquainted with another's handwriting (or the Certifying Authority for electronic signatures) is relevant to identify the author or signatory of a document.
When it applies
- A merchant's clerk who routinely filed correspondence purportedly from a trader may give an opinion on whether a disputed letter is in that trader's handwriting, even without ever having seen the trader write.
- Where the authenticity of an electronic signature is in question, the Certifying Authority that issued the Electronic Signature Certificate may give its opinion as a relevant fact.
Practitioner note
Section 47A was inserted into the IEA by the IT Act 2000 to cover electronic signatures; BSA consolidates both into a single section. Acquaintance need not be direct observation — habitual business submission suffices.
Derived from IEA s.47 and s.47A.
Read the official text
For the binding statutory text of BSA Section 41, refer to the Gazette of India or the India Code official website.
Why this matters
BSA Section 41 forms part of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which replaced the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on 1 July 2024. Any new filing, FIR, charge sheet, or bail application made on or after that date should cite the new section number. References to the old act in legacy documents remain valid for matters that arose before the changeover.