2010 (1) TMI 1294 - HC - Indian Laws

Negotiable Instruments Act - offence u/s 138 - cheques in question for examination - Whether the Courts can order to send documents for forensic opinion regarding the age of the writings and signatures on disputed documents? - HELD THAT - No denial of the fact that the accused needs to be afforded a fair trial to exhaust all his defences available to him. Fair trial is the sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence and the same has been recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To prove that the handwriting was not made by him or that the signature was not made by him, the accused can very well request the Court to forward the document for expert opinion. But the question is, in respect of the age of the writings on a document whether there is any expert in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, who shall be competent to examine the same scientifically and to offer his opinion. According to Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, On a query made by this Court regarding the above position, he would explain to this Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department, to scientifically assess the age of any writing and to offer opinion. However, he would submit that there is one institution known as Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government organisation. 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. Therefore, 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. 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. In view of all the above, the revisions are allowed and the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate are set aside and the request for sending the documents for ascertaining the age of the writings is rejected. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Courts can order to send documents for forensic opinion regarding the age of writings and signatures on disputed documents.

Analysis:
The case involved the accused facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, who filed petitions seeking to forward cheques for examination by the Director of Forensic Science to determine the age of writings and signatures. The petitioner, the complainant, challenged this, arguing that there is no scientific method available to accurately determine the age of writings or signatures. The petitioner cited previous judgments stating that the age of ink cannot be determined with scientific accuracy. The respondents argued that sending documents for expert examination is part of fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment directing document comparison by an expert. A Single Judge of the High Court also held that documents can be subjected to scientific tests by an expert.

The Court emphasized the importance of affording the accused a fair trial to present all defenses. However, it questioned whether there are experts capable of scientifically determining the age of writings as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Court sought clarification from the Head of the Document Division, Forensic Science Department, who confirmed the lack of a scientific method in the state to assess the age of writings accurately. The Head mentioned a Central Government organization with limited capabilities but noted that even its opinion would not be exact. The Court concluded that the current practice of sending documents for age determination opinions is futile, as the Forensic Department cannot offer such opinions.

Regarding the judgments cited, the Court noted that the Supreme Court case did not address the scientific examination of writing age. The Court also discussed a previous High Court judgment, highlighting that it proceeded under the assumption of available experts, which the current inquiry disproved. Consequently, the Court allowed the revisions, set aside the lower court's orders, rejected the request for age determination of writings, and appreciated the assistance provided by the Assistant Director.