2013 (10) TMI 1566 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for sending questioned documents to SFSL.
2. Conflicting expert opinions on handwriting.
3. Court's power and procedure for examining handwriting.
4. Necessity of independent expert opinion.
5. Regulatory measures for expert witnesses.

Summary:

1. Application for sending questioned documents to SFSL:
The petitioner-defendant filed a civil revision petition u/s 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2013 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Phul, which dismissed the application for sending the questioned documents (pronote and receipt) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) for examination.

2. Conflicting expert opinions on handwriting:
The petitioner-defendant and respondent-plaintiff presented contradictory reports from their respective handwriting experts regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the questioned documents. The petitioner-defendant's expert claimed the signatures differed from the admitted ones, while the respondent-plaintiff's expert asserted they matched.

3. Court's power and procedure for examining handwriting:
The Court discussed the relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including Sections 45, 47, 67, and 73, which outline the methods for proving handwriting and signatures. The Court emphasized that while expert opinions are relevant, they are not binding, and the Court has the power to compare handwriting itself u/s 73 of the Act.

4. Necessity of independent expert opinion:
Given the conflicting opinions from the parties' experts, the Court deemed it necessary to seek an independent opinion from a government agency like SFSL/CFSL to resolve the conflict. The Court highlighted that the trial Court should consider the opinion of a third expert to break the stalemate and ensure a fair decision.

5. Regulatory measures for expert witnesses:
The Court directed the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of Punjab, Haryana, and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to establish a regulatory mechanism for accrediting and registering expert witnesses. This includes preparing a list of qualified handwriting and fingerprint experts, verifying their credentials, and framing a code of ethics and conduct for their work. The Court emphasized the importance of expert opinions in the justice system and the need for a regulatory authority to handle conflicting expert opinions.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 07.05.2013 was set aside, and the petition was allowed. The trial Court was directed to send the questioned documents to SFSL/CFSL for examination, with expenses borne by the petitioner-defendant. The Court also mandated the creation of a regulatory framework for expert witnesses to ensure their credibility and reliability in legal proceedings.