9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke 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 by the above clippings in the authorities, it transpires that it is not at all difficult task to step into the experiments under the guidelines of illustrious experts in this field. The authorities and the officials concerned have to take initiatives to evolve procedures for experiments with latest technology for achieving improvement on the subject. [para 23[b]] On the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches, the authors have provided procedures and devices, with reference to the names of chemicals and reagents to be utilised, to solve the issue and it is incumbent upon the experts to put the authoritative theories and the latest proved and established technologies to empirical use. They have to take the inventiveness drawing the proven and accepted principles from well settled authorities and the Government have to provide necessary latest infrastructures in the Document Division of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and also allot necessary funds for the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 26 [b]] The above said discussion on the strength of the authorities available before the Court is only indicative, not exhaustive. It is not a sole-source training manual. [para 27] Adverting to the facts of the present case, since various scientific avenues are available for finding out the age of the ink in a document, it must be subjected to tests as suggested by various scientists. I follow the ratio in the decisions in Kalyani Baskar's case and T. Nagappa's case above, and direct to refer the disputed document to such examination in order to provide an opportunity when a good material is available, to rebut the presumption as per law, by non-destructive method in this regard. [para 28] (Emphasis supplied). 2. Let me consider some of the decisions of this Court on the above issue. (a). In S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 769, revision petition was directed against an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 date of the execution of the document and used on 11.2.1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code. The basic rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties...." (d). In V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi, 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 93 : LNIND 2010 MAD 734 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 762, the issue considered was as to whether, a disputed cheque could be sent for expert opinion, for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the ink used for writing. The lower Court, directed the cheque to be sent for opinion. After considering the earlier decisions, at para No. 7, Honourable Justice S. NAGAMUTHU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 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 : LNIND 2010 BMM 1824 and A. Devaraj v. V. Rajammal (supra), at paragraph Nos. 24 and 25, this Court in K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj (supra) held as follows: "24. A reading of the above provision would make it crystal clear that an expert is the one who has got special skill in science or art or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Here the identity of handwritings and finger impressions would denote an expert who can compare the disputed handwriting or finger impression with the admitted handwriting or finger impression. Such experts are available and, therefore, the documents are sent to those experts for opinion. But, there is no such expert available in India to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 25. In this regard, we may come back to the judgment of Justice S. NAGAMUTHU in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy (supra), wherein it is not the view taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eproduction. Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 are extracted hereunder: "20. Very recently, the President of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State was invited to give a lecture in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy at Chennai on the subject "disputed document". During the course of interaction, a question was posed to him - Is there any expert available for offering opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document? - In categorical terms, he informed that there is no such expert available not only in his Laboratory but in any Laboratory throughout the country at present and, therefore, it is not at all possible to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink used in the disputed document. When a specific query was made during interaction to the President as to what had happened to the documents already sent to his Laboratory seeking such opinion, he said that the said documents were only returned without offering any opinion. 21. Now, in order to ascertain as to whether there is any expert really available in the said laboratory since the request is to send the disputed document to the said laboratory in Hyderabad, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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. At the outset, the petitioner admits his signature in the cheque in question and he only contends that the ink by which the dates and amount filled therein differs. In other words, the petitioner seeks to ascertain the age of the ink by which the dates and amounts were filled in the cheque which cannot be done in view of the decision of this Court reported in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and Another 2010 (1) CTC 424. In that decision, this Court held that there is no such facility available in India, especially in Tamil Nadu to compare the age of the ink. In Para Nos. 7, 8 and 9, it was held as follows: "7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said statement, this Court had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.R. Elango to request either the Director or the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, to be present before this Court to explain the position. Accordingly, today, Mr. A.R. Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 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 judgment, at Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 in Panneerselvam v. S. Bakkiam (supra), this Court held as follows: "5. In the light of the above decision, the Court below is right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to send the disputed cheque in question for ascertaining the age of the ink or the variation in the ink in the subject matter of the cheque. 6. The Court below also found that if the cheque in question was issued long back, as contended by the petitioner/accused, the same can be proved by way of bank records and therefore also the comparison of the admitted signature and the alleged disputed signature are unnecessary. Such a reasoning assigned by the court below is valid and justified. Further, the petitioner has filed the instant application only after three years from the date of institution of the case by the respondent. In any view of the matter, in the light of the decision of this Court, mentioned supra, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
