West Pakistan High Court Karachi Bench
Mr. Justice J. Ortcheson

".... Mr. Zaka A. Malik (P.W.9) Handwriting Expert, has proved that the amount in words and figures on the disputed Bill Ex. P.A. are in the handwriting of Sadar-ud-Din appellant .... The evidence of the same witness also records that the bill was typed on the machine Ex. P.I. and that the forged signatures of the Treasury Officer are by the writer of Exs. P.H., P.S. and P.V. (Saadat Ali Khan appellant)
There is further the evidence of Mr. Zaka A. Malik (P.W.9) to the effect that the signature of M. A. Khan on the document Ex. P.A. is in the handwriting of this appellant. … in the present case there is no reason to hold that Mr. Zaka A. Malik is mistaken.

(Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1955)

Full Bench Supreme Court of Pakistan
M. Shahab-ud-Din, J., A.R. Cornelius & S.A. Rehman, J.J.

".... the evidence of the Expert (D.W. 3) (Mr. Zaka A. Malik) that this letter contains the peculiar characteristics of the handwriting of the approver is taken as establishing that it was written by him, .... "

(P.L.D. 1958; Supreme Court (Pak) 137)

Full Bench of West Pakistan High Court
A. Aziz Khan, J., Ortcheson & Yaqub Ali Khan, J.J.

"On the whole however, we found the evidence of Mr. Zaka A. Malik more helpful than that of Mr. Bhan, …

What we found most helpful in Mr. Malik's evidence … the charts Exs. D.W. 12/29-33 which he prepared to illustrate his opinion. Exs. D.W.12/29 & 30 show the characteristics of letters taken from Ex. D/1; It is, in our opinion, unnecessary to discuss the above charts in detail, since it is primarily a matter of observation whether the similarities alleged by Mr. Malik exist or not. In our opinion they do, and the cumulative effect is such as to lead us to the conclusion that the document Ex. D.1 is in the handwriting of the complainant."

(P.L.D. 1963; Lahore. 141 & A.P.R. Lahore. 74)

Full Bench
A.R. Cornelius, C.J.
S.A. Rehman, Fazle Akbar, B.Z. Kaikaus & Hamood-ur-Rehman J.J.

"Renate's statement was supported by ..... Mr. Zaka A. Malik ...."
"...... the benefit of doubt could be extended to the respondent as an accused person, and it were to be held that Ex. D/1, might have been written by the complainant …"

(P.L.D. 1963; Supreme Court. 51)

Mr. Gulbas Khan J.

".....Mr. Zaka A. Malik (DW 4) stated that the licence Ex. P.A. was not in the handwriting of appellant. In view of the statements of ... Handwriting Expert, it cannot be said with certainty that the license Ex. P.A. was in the handwriting of the appellant."

(P.L.J. 1974; Criminal Cases LHR. 600)

I am satisfied that the detailed reasons given by Mr. Zaka A. Malik .... are correct and cogent for holding that the disputed signature .... is not the signature of petitioner...."

(P.S.C; 1982, 1239), (S.C.J; 1982, 546)

Munawar Ahmad Mirza, J.J.

"In the given circumstances statement of Mr. Zaka A. Malik, Handwriting Expert gains considerable importance. He has exhaustively explained that the signatures on Ex. P/1 are different...." "... therefore, opinion of handwriting expert based on comparative study and absence of effective impeachment during cross examination becomes more reliable and worthy of credit."

(C.L.C. 1989; 2287)

Ali Hussain Qazilbash & Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.J.

" … The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties including … Mr. Zaka A. Malik, Handwriting Expert who appeared as DW-1, on issue … observed …
From the above evidence on record, it is proved that the thumb impressions on the wakalatnama Exh. D.1, on the plaint Exh. D.2 and on the court-fee stamp Exh.D.4 are not of Taleh Mand plaintiff, but they are of some other persons …"

"… The stand of appellant had all along been, during the pendency of the suit, that he thumb marked the plaint and vakalatnama. It was found to be false and wrong in view of the statement of Zaka A. Malik. The plaint and the vakalatnama in the present case were not duly thumb marked by the appellant "

(PLJ 1991; SC 291)

Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J.
Wali Muhammad Khan & Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, J.J.

"… In support of his version he relied on the statement of Muhammad Din D.W.2, Handwriting Expert of the Police Department… who was contradicted by P.W.2 (Mr. Zaka A. Malik) … they obtained the opinion of Mr. Zaka A. Malik, Handwriting Expert, … He was examined in Court as P.W.2 in which he proved his opinion and stated … that the impugned document bore the signature of the executant of registered sale deeds Exhs.P.1 and P.2. He gave detailed reasons in support of his conclusions in his report Exh. P.7 as well as his statement in Court. Taking advantage of his detailed reasons with regard to each alphabet of the signatures in question, as per the judgment of this Court in case Ali Ahmad V. The State PLD 1962 SC 102 also made an exercise of comparison of the signatures of Dr. Abdul Qayyum with his admitted signatures on Exhs. P.1 and P.2 with the help of magnifying glass and found the reasonings advanced by the expert (Zaka A. Malik) quite plausible and convincing. On the other hand, Muhammad Din D.W.2 in his report did not advance reasons in support of his conclusions. Consequently, the opinion of Zaka A. Malik deserved preference over the opinion of Muhammad Din …."

(PLD-1995; Supreme Court. 381)