Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1916 - HC - Indian LawsProduction of documents under leave of the court - it is alleged that a particular document was not referred to a Forensic Laboratory, for seeking an expert opinion, as regards the age of the ink appearing in the signature of the petitioner - case of the defendant is that he has signed on a blank document, which was tendered as a surety to the plaintiff - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of VIJAY S/O ACHYUT ASHTIKAR, REKHA W/O VIJAY ASHTIKAR VERSUS VINAYAK S/O ACHYUT ASHTIKAR 2018 (2) TMI 2084 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that the technology is now available to consider the age of the ink appearing on a document. If the original copy of the document containing the writing is available, the Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai has the facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. The said Institution is a Central Government Organization. This Court, therefore, ruled in favour of referring the document for the purposes of seeking an expert opinion upon the approximate age of the ink. In view of the law that has evolved in the judgments delivered in Vijay Achyut Ashtikar, the Trial Court should have taken a pragmatic view rather than taking a pedantic view in the matter. The endevour of the court is to ensure that the truth surfaces. If the ends of justice are to be met and especially in view of the peculiar facts of this case when the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit afresh, the rejection of Exh.44 would not come in way of the petitioner/ defendant. This petition is partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of documents produced by the plaintiff under Exh.189. 2. Rejection of the petitioner's application Exh.190 seeking forensic examination of the ink on a document. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Documents Produced by the Plaintiff under Exh.189: The petitioner, the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2006, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 09.10.2015, which allowed the plaintiff to produce certain documents, including a cheque, a cheque return memo, and a letter from the bank. The Trial Court concluded that the evidentiary value of these documents would be considered at the final stage and permitted their exhibition as they were in original form. The petitioner was concerned that he would not get an opportunity to confront these documents. However, the High Court found this apprehension misplaced, stating that mere exhibition does not equate to proving the contents. The Indian Evidence Act requires the contents to be proven through due procedure, hence the petitioner would not be prejudiced. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the Trial Court must remain conscious of these observations. 2. Rejection of Petitioner's Application Exh.190 for Forensic Examination: The petitioner also contested the Trial Court's rejection of his application Exh.190, which sought to refer a document to a Forensic Laboratory to determine the age of the ink. The respondent argued that a similar application (Exh.44) had been rejected six years earlier, invoking the rule of estoppel, as per the Kerala High Court's decision in Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala. However, the High Court noted that the earlier judgment did not involve a retrial, unlike this case where the suit was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing for new evidence. The High Court referenced its own judgment in Vijay Achyut Ashtikar, which acknowledged the availability of technology to determine the age of ink, supporting the petitioner's request. Additionally, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mr. Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Mr. Nuburu Mohan Rao also recognized the feasibility of such forensic analysis by institutions like Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai. Given the directions for a retrial and the evolution of law allowing for scientific examination of documents, the High Court found that the Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach. The rejection of Exh.44 should not impede the petitioner's request. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.10.2015 and allowed application Exh.190. The Trial Court was directed to refer the document to Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, to determine the age of the ink on the document and signatures. The petitioner was to deposit the requisite fees, and the agency was to submit its report within 45 days. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the resolution of Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2006, preferably by September 30, 2019.
|