It is not clear you need a judgement on what, please clarify so that accordingly we can provide you the rulings..
Yes ,one can be punished o the basis of the handwriting Expert opinion if the evidence is related to making any document or sign as it depend on the circumstances of the case, which corroborative and circumstantial.
However the court has to order for an examination , you need to seek the permission of the court.
Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003(Supreme court)
"It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the Court by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three Sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the Court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the Handwriting Expert, the Court can compare the admitted writing with disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of Handwriting Expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the Court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when experts' evidence is not there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. [See Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704] In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority took pains to carefully consider the Handwriting expert's report and also looked at the documents to arrive at their own conclusions".
In Sapan haldar and another , the Delhi Hihg Court has observed that
. "We note that the legislature has taken corrective action, when by virtue of Act No.25 of 2005, with effect from June 23, 2006, Section 311A has been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has empowered a Magistrate to direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting. Section 311A reads as under:-
To support this some of the cases are as follows
"311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. - If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding."
Thus, with effect from June 23, 2006 the legislative empowerment has empowered the Magistrate concerned with reference to signatures and handwriting; the lacuna in the law which was noted by the Supreme Court in the year 1980 when Ram Babu Mishra?s case (supra) was decided has been removed.
We answer the reference as follows:-
(i) Handwriting and signature are not measurements as defined under clause (a) of Section 2 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Section 4 and Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 will not apply to a handwriting sample or a sample signature. Thus, an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, when Act No.25 of 2005 was notified, inter-alia, inserting Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even a Magistrate could not direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting samples. In cases where Magistrates have directed so, the evidence was held to be inadmissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Babu Mishra?s case (supra). According to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the Court concerned can direct a person appearing before it to submit samples of his handwriting and/or signature for purposes of comparison.
please read :- State Of U.P vs Ram Babu Misra on 19 February, 1980(SC)