2018 (9) TMI 2106 - HC - Indian Laws

Determination of age of ink in the cheque - HELD THAT - It is observed in A. Inayathulla 2015 (1) TMI 1482 - MADRAS HIGH COURT another expression of the Madras High Court in K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj 2012 (7) TMI 1150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT 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 Hyderabad of there is no validated method in their laboratory to undertake examination to determine the relative or absolute age of the ink of the writings or signatures. It is observed in A. Inayathulla supra by referring to the expression in R. Jagadeesan supra 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 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 to direct the defendant to deposit Rs. 20, 000/- and send the document to the Nutron Activation Analysis BABC Mumbai which is a Central Government Organization where the facility of determination of age of the ink available for its determination on petitioner s ascertain the full and correct address and availability of the facility and from deposit of the amount.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity of promissory notes and determination of the age of ink.
2. Defendant's denial of debt and claim of document fabrication.
3. Trial Court's dismissal of the application to send documents for expert analysis.
4. Legal precedents and scientific feasibility of determining the age of ink.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authenticity of Promissory Notes and Determination of the Age of Ink:
The defendant contested the authenticity of four promissory notes, claiming they were fabricated. The defendant sought to send these notes to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink used in the signatures and recitals, arguing that this would prove the documents were not contemporaneous with the alleged transactions. The Trial Court dismissed this application, citing the impracticality of determining the age of the ink after six years and referencing the case of Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Bala Krishna, which stated that such determinations could lead to complications.

2. Defendant's Denial of Debt and Claim of Document Fabrication:
The defendant denied borrowing any money from the plaintiff and claimed that the promissory notes were fabricated as part of a collusion involving the plaintiff, his son, and another individual. The defendant asserted that he never signed the promissory notes or issued the cheque in question. The plaintiff, however, maintained that the defendant had admitted to signing the notes and issuing the cheque, which was later dishonored.

3. Trial Court's Dismissal of the Application to Send Documents for Expert Analysis:
The Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application to send the promissory notes for expert analysis, reasoning that the age of the ink could not be determined after six years. The Court also noted that even if such a facility existed, it might not yield definitive results due to potential complications such as the age of the pen or ink used.

4. Legal Precedents and Scientific Feasibility of Determining the Age of Ink:
The defendant's counsel cited several legal precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in T. Rajalingam @ Sambam v. State of Telangana, which supported the defendant's right to have documents examined to determine the age of the ink. The Court in this case highlighted that the determination of the age of ink is a valuable right for the defense and should be allowed unless deemed vexatious or a delay tactic. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Shashi Kumar Banerjee's Case, which acknowledged the possibility of determining the age of ink through chemical tests.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The High Court directed the lower Court to send the disputed documents to the Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, a Central Government Organization with the facility to determine the age of ink. The defendant was instructed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- and provide the full and correct address of the facility. This decision underscores the importance of allowing defendants the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of documents through scientific means, provided the necessary facilities and expertise are available.