TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rangappa and Mohan and from Nagappa and Kalyani Bhaskar supra, such valuable right of defence of the accused from the request to send the documents to expert cannot be shunned by the Courts, to his prejudice. The dismissal order of the lower Court is set aside and the revision is allowed. - Crl. RC. No. 2363 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2019 - Hon ble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao For the Petitioner : Pulla Rao Yellanki. Respondent : Public Prosecutor TG. ORDER The petitioner in the present revision is accused in C.C.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, which case was renumbered from C.C.No.717 of 2017. 2. The 2nd respondent is the complainant therein. It is for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act outcome of private complaint for dishonour of the cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- No.783255 dated 17.6.2017 from the issuance of statutory notice and from failure to pay and from accrual of cause of action, and after perusal and from the sworn statement taken cognizance and accused put-forth his appearance and it is while under trial, the accused filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1489 of 2018 under Section 45 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific case of the petitioner/accused of the cheque and pro-note obtained in 2009-10 are misused, though obtained for a difference purpose and the claim is incorrect and not liable for prosecution, thereby it is necessary to send the cheque and pro-note to determine the age of the ink by expert. 6. The counter filed by the complainant in opposing the petition, is mainly from paragraphs 2 and 3, with contest, that in the cross-examination of P.W.1-complainant/accused, suggestions were given of pro-note note and cheque are kept as collateral security for the bank loan availed by the College and at that time the complainant was Treasurer of the College Society. However, in the entire cross-examination of P.W.1, there is no suggestion that signatures found in the pro-note note and cheque are in different ink and are in different handwriting and it is admitted by the petitioner/accused in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that signatures on the cheque and pronote belong to him, not a case of forged or fabricated and not even request to send handwriting expert the documents, but only the age of the ink of the signatures and the same doesn t arise, but for no bonafides and only to drag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , so also of the valuable defence right of the accused and the expression of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Yashpal v.Kartar Singh [AIR 2003 (P H) 344] saying age of the ink cannot be determined by expert. Further, as per the expression of A.P. High Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao v.Kesana Balakrishna [2013 Law Suit (AP) 586], mere determination of age of ink, even if there exists any facility, cannot determine the age of signatures and thereby no purpose be served in sending disputed cheques to expert, coming to the Madras High Court expression in A.Inayathulla v. A.Ramesh [2015 Law Suit (Mad) 807], age of ink not determinable to consider the application of accused to send disputed cheque for that purpose by referring to several expressions including earlier that of the Court and in Elumalai v. Subramani [2011 (3) CTC 616] referring to several to authors on the age of ink and writings that can be determined, but to take initiatives to evolve procedure for experiment with latest technology for achieving improvement on the subject on the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches with reference to the names of chemicals and reagents to be utilized, to solve the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons given to the opinion, is a matter for ultimate appreciation and by also referred to the other expression of the Apex Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [2007(1) SCC (Cri) 577], which is also in relation to a cheque bouncing case for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, observed of accused got a valuable right in requesting as part of his defence, to send the disputed signatures or writings on the cheque to expert, that cannot be shunned unless the Court thinks that the object of the application itself is vexatious or with a delay tactics, also by referring to the Full Bench expression of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu [2016 (2) ALT 248], which referred to earlier Division Bench expression in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. v. Divya Financiers [2008(3) ALT 409], saying contemporary relevancy of small gap itself is not criteria unless available, a gap itself is not a ground to refuse the sending of documents for comparison and there is no circular as to what time the document can be asked to be sent to the expert for opinion and by referring to T.Nagappa supra, where it is observed of when accused disputes the liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nization, that was also referred and reiterated in para 4 of Inayatullah besides R.Jagadeesan. It is thereby again the matter came up for consideration before this Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah v. Numburu Mohan Rao, in the civil matter, C.R.P.No.4656 of 2018 dated 25.9.2018, reported as 2018(6) ALT 285, observed by referring to the other two single Judge expressions and the earlier expression of this Court in Rajalingam, which elaborately discussed the law, concluded that once there is expertise to determine the age of the writing of ink and same is admissible and relevant, the document can be sent and it is premature to determine its evidentiary value but for in trial, with reference to other facts. By the time, the judgment delivered on 25.9.2018 in Namineni Audiseshaiah supra, the another single Judge expression of this Court in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy in C.R.P.No.6069 of 2016 and batch dated 7.4.2017, not brought to the notice of this Court nor to the single Judge expression therein brought notice of the expression in Rajalingam @ Sambam supra. No doubt, in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru supra, the Apex Court expression in Shashi Kumar Banerjee, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing. In some countries age marker chemicals, usually radioactive materials, are added to the ink. They indicate the age of the writing. Fresh ink is easily smudged. Older inks do not smudge easily. The ease of smudging may give a rough estimate of the age of the writing. The methods listed above look impressive. But in practice it is seldom that correct age of the document can be determined as there are many variables which affect the changes in the ink. Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India. 15. Therefore, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by referring the document to the Handwriting Expert. Hence, the dismissal of the applications by the Court below cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. 9. No doubt, from the concussion in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru supra, the evidentiary value is bleak and in practice, it is seldom that correct age of document is determined, there are many variations which affect the changes and thereby no useful purpose will be served by referring the document to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
