TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. For the Appellant : E. Kannadasan ORDER S. Manikumar, J. 1. Request of the petitioner to refer the disputed cheque dated 18.02.2013 to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, to find out the age of the signature, has been rejected, vide order made in Crl. M.P. No. 2070 of 2014 in C.C. No. 77 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore District dated 02.12.2014 and that the same is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case on the grounds inter alia that the Court below has failed to consider the petitioner's case that he has not issued the cheque to the respondent and from the very beginning, the petitioner has denied issuance of the cheque. Reliance is placed on the decision in Elumalai v. Subramani, 2011 (3) CTC 616 : LNIND 2011 MAD 14 : (2011) 6 MLJ 524, this Court held as follows: The aforenoted opinions of the reputed authors on this subject as narrated above would make it abundantly clear that it is not impossible to discover age of the ink. Hence, the plea that the procedures have not evolved so far in this country is no longer available and it cannot be acceded to Going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is further scope for upswing in the technology. It is bounden duty of the official concerned to follow the procedures. As mentioned in para 12(b) of this judgment, even anterior to 1964, in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in Shashi kumar Banerjee's Case (supra) before the trial Court, the expert had stated that the determination of the age could be ascertained definitely by a chemical test. It reveals that even prior to 1964, chemical tests were in application to find out age of ink. Now, the science in this branch has prospered to considerable dimensions and it cannot hereafter be contended that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink by scientific method and exact result could not be secured. The scientists/experts should appear before the Courts with opinionated evidence in this regard, on their successful accomplishment of this assignment. [para 26[a]] The advancements in establishing the facts in this field as a science continue through today. The explosion of modern technology has influenced every facet of our lives, from introducing new avenues of written communications to improvements in ink and ergonomic design of writing instruments. [para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of Cr.P.C., and Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, for a direction to send the disputed pronote therein, and to obtain a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT Delhi, to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps. The Civil Judge dismissed the same. In the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at paragraph No. 5 held as follows: 5. A perusal of the afore-mentioned provision shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and the determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11.2.1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . D. Balachandran (supra), a learned single judge was of the view that the disputed documents has to be sent to Central Forensic Department, Hyderabad. From the reading of A. Devaraj v. Rajammal (supra), it could be noticed that there was nothing to indicate as to whether the Court had considered as to whether such expertise, is available in the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad. So also in Elumalai v. Subramani (supra). (g). In K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj, 2012 (5) CTC 596 : LNIND 2012 BMM 567, accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed an application to forward the cheque in question, to an expert to determine the age of the ink and the said petition was dismissed by the Magistrate. After considering S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran (supra) and V.P. Sankaran v. Uthirakumar, 2009 (6) CTC 29 : LNIND 2009 MAD 1067, R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy (supra), V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi (supra), Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh (supra), Indira Balasubramaniam and Others v. S. Subash, in Cr. P. NPD No. 3082 of 2008 dated 17.08.2009, Decon Constructions v. J.A. Stephen and Krishnammal, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 84 : 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 481 : 2011 (2) RCR (Crl.) 628 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntific method to offer his opinion. But, in respect of age of the ink though there are scientific method available in India, there is neither such scientific expert available nor equipment available. It is because of these reasons, I have to necessarily hold that for getting an opinion regarding the age of the ink, the disputed document cannot be sent anywhere as of now. I would make it clear that in future, if any expert emerges and equipment's are also made available, then, after identifying him, the court may forward the disputed documents to him for opinion. Until such time, the document cannot be sent anywhere for the purpose of getting opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document. In the above case, this Court has ascertained, as to whether there is any expert available for offering opinion regarding the age of the ink used in the document. Observations of this Court after ascertaining the remarks from the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, is worthwhile reproduction. Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 are extracted hereunder: 20. Very recently, the President of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State was invi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instituted by the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed CMP No. 854 of 2011 contending that the ink in which the petitioner had put his signature in the cheque in question and the ink by which the dates and amounts were filled varies and therefore, while disowning his liability to pay the cheque amount, the petitioner sought for sending the cheque in question to the forensic authorities for comparison so as to disprove the case of the complainant/respondent herein. Further, the cheque in question is non-MICR NCE coded cheque which was not in existence at that point of time and therefore it is clear that the cheque in question was issued long back. Therefore also, the petitioner sought for comparison of the signature by which the dates and amount were filled in the cheque in question by an expert. The Court below, without considering the above aspects has dismissed the application and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 of the judgment in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy (supra), considered in Panneerselvam v. S. Bakkiam (supra), are extracted. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, that can alone be found out. But he would be sure enough to say that the age of the writings cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion. 8. In view of the above clear and unambiguous statement made by no less a person than the Head of the Department of Forensic Science, I am of the view that the whole exercise adopted in various Courts in this State to send the disputed documents for opinion to the Forensic Department in respect of the age of the writings and the documents is only futile. If any document is so sent, certainly the department will say that no opinion could be offered. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Director would inform the Court that already many such documents, which were sent to them by various Courts in the State for such opinion, have been returned by them with the report that no such opinion could be offered. 9. In view of all the above, in my considered opinion, sending the documents for opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents should not be resorted to hereafter by the Courts unless, in future, due to scientific advancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the writings. 5. After considering the said ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
