TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is very much clear that there is no mechanism or scientific method to find out the age of the writing or ink. But the learned Additional District Judge, without considering the non-availability of any such mechanism, by simply observing that the defendant has to be given an opportunity to prove his defence and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, allowed the petition. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is not good in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned order, dismissing the petition filed by the accused cannot be found fault with and consequently, this Court concludes that the above Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to the dismissed - this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. - CRL.R.C.(MD).No.781 of 2022 and CRL.M.P.(MD).No.9709 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MURALI SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Mohideen Basha ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 05.04.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid, the complainant insisted for the return of the loan amount along with interest, that the accused have issued cheques in favour of the complainant in order to repay the amounts due, that three cheques were issued by the second accused duly signed by him in the name of the first accused and two other cheques were signed by the fourth accused duly signed by her in the name of her firm, that the complainant had presented the cheques for collection in Union Bank of India on 17.11.2007, that the cheques were returned dishonoured with an endorsement as funds insufficient , that the complainant had issued a legal notice on 21.11.2007, that the accused had received the notice and sent a reply notice on 22.12.2007 to the complainant containing false and frivolous allegations and that since the amount due was not paid, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint. 8.The main contention of the petitioners is that the blank pro-notes and cheques issued by the first accused partnership firm related to the borrowings since 1996 and 1997 and they were not at all signed or issued or delivered during 2005 as well as 2007, that all payments cleared by 1996 has been proved t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited Vs. R.Krishnamurthy and Others] :- 28. In Gopal,Sv.D.Balachandran, reported in 2008 CTC (1) 491, this Court (M.Jeyapaul, J) has held that age of ink cannot be determined by expert with scientific accuracy and it was found by this Court in the decision, that filing such a petition to find out the age of the ink would create only further confusion. Hence, no expert opinion would be required to find out the age of the ink. 29.In Yash Pal V. Kartar Singh, reported in AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken a similar view that the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and use of the same effectively on a particular date for the first time would not resolve any controversy, but it would create only confusion. 34.When there is no scope for scientific investigation, Commissioner cannot be appointed, under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC. On the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is clear that the age of the ink could not be decided by any expert, as the same ink was used by the scribe, who wrote the minutes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. According to him, even such opinion cannot be exact. He would further submit that since it is a Central Government Organisation and confined only to atomic research, the documents relating to prosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent to that institution also for the purpose of opinion. He would further submit that if a document is sent for comparision, with the available scientific knowledge, opinion to the extent as to whether the same could have been made an individual, by comparing his admitted handwritings or signatures, alone could be made. He would further submit that if there are writings with two different inks, in the same document, 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, certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truments Act, has been filed after the examination of the accused. There is no competent authority to ascertain the age of the ink and the said facility is stated to be not available in the Forensic Departments in India. There is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Court below, warranting interference. 13.It is pertinent to note that as per the directions of the learned Single Judge in A.Inayathullah's case, the Assistant Director appeared before the Court and informed that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this State, that there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time, during which, the writings would have been made and he submitted that even such opinion cannot be exact. He further submitted that the said Nutron Activation Analysis is confined only to atomic research, the documents relating to prosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent to that institution. 14.On considering the various decisions of this Court and other Courts, this Court in Kanagaraj Vs. Ramamoorthy in CRP.(MD)No.601 of 2021 has observed that it is very much clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
