TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he approximate range of the time, during which the writings would have been made and it is a Central Government Organization. In view of the expression in A. Inayathulla [ 2015 (1) TMI 1482 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] no useful purpose can be served or no opinion can be possible are untenable and it is observed at Para 14 that the Apex Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [ 2006 (12) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT ] having set aside the order of the Magistrate upheld in revision of dismissing the application of the accused in a cheque bouncing case and allowed the request of the accused to send the disputed signatures to handwriting expert saying that is valuable right of defence, unless the Court thinks that the object of the application itself is vexatious or with a delay tactics such request cannot be negated. Once such is the case, the facility available and the expert is also available. Thus there is no meaning in arguing of no practical use or purpose or sending to determine age of the ink is a futile exercise. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the lower Court by restoring and allowing the application with a direction to the lower Court t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t before the trial Court under Section 94(e), 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed pro-note to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink in the signatures of the petitioner and the recitals in the pro-notes by saying suit claim based on the so called pro-notes are fabricated documents and by misusing the transactions between the plaintiffs son Venkateswara Rao in fabricating the suit pro-notes and thereby those are to be sent to expert to determine the age of the ink found in the signatures of him and of the alleged attestors and the recitals in the body of the pro-notes. 4. The counter filed by the plaintiff in opposing the petition before the trial Court is with contest of the petitioner/defendant borrowed amounts and executed the pro-notes. In the written statement he admitted the signatures but for contentions of plaintiff misused the transactions between the plaintiff and the son of the defendant, the suit pro-notes were executed in the year 2012 and after lapse of 6 years the age of the ink cannot be determined and even if such facility available, it cannot be sent for determination, in the cross examination of the defendant he admitted as DW. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Telangana 2017 Law suit (Hyd) 23 dated 19.01.2017 where it is in a cheque bouncing case from the defence of cheques given in the year 2007 and those were time barred and those were tampered by showing as if given in 2012 more than 5 years and thereby documents are to be send to expert for comparison and determination of the age of ink. It is observed that when the dispute as to the tampering with antedate and determination of age of ink that is valuable right of accused to establish by defence evidence and once wants to do so as held by this Court in M/s. S.K. Health Care Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Globe Glass Containers 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 397 relying upon the expression of the Apex Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidar AIR 2008 SC 2010; apart from the other settled expression in M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 3366 relied upon in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde 2008 (4) SCC 54 that was referred and explained by the three Judge Bench in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 in relation to the reverse onus burden on the accused the Court has to afford an opportunity by preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumptions avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion by adopting any scientific method and also referred other expressions of the Madras High Court in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran 2011 (2) Mad LJ (Cri) 595 at para-32 and A. Devaraj v. Rajammal 2011 (3) Mad LJ (Cri) 440, where the Madras High Court took the leaf of the disputed documents to be send to determine the age of the ink to the Central Forensic Department, Hyderabad, by referring to the earlier expression in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy 2010 (1) CTC 424, which referred earlier expression in S. Gopal supra and it is observed in A. Inayathulla supra and A. Devaraj supra. 10. It is observed in A. Inayathulla supra, another expression of the Madras High Court in K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj 2012 (5) CTC 596, and that though there is scientific method available, there is no expert available who can scientifically examine particularly at the Forensic Science Department of the Government of Tamilnadu. The Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad, expert attended the Tamilnadu Judicial Academy to address the officials also stated that no expert is available there had and the fax message received from Assistant Director of Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts no purpose served by referring to the expression of the Karnataka High Court in Ishwar v. Suresh 2010 Cr.L.J. 1510. 13. It is observed at Para 12 even therefrom once the Apex Court expression is very clear that an expert opinion as to determine the age of writing of ink can be possible and to admit is relevant, it is premature to determine its evidentiary value as whether it can be basis or not and whether to serve as a piece of corroboration and if so to what extent is ultimately to be determined from the reasons assigned in the opinion of the expert as even opinion on handwriting is a developing science and not conclusive as reiterated by the Apex Court in the recent expression of the settled law in SPS Rathore v. CBI 2016 3 ALT (Crl) 307 at paras 27 to 30. 14. Further in view of the above expression in A. Inayathulla supra of no useful purpose can be served or no opinion can be possible are untenable and it is observed at Para 14 that the Apex Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam 2007 1 SCC (Crl) 577 having set aside the order of the Magistrate upheld in revision of dismissing the application of the accused in a cheque bouncing case and allowed the request of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
