9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to the Court. The said expert informed the Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department to scientifically ascertain the age of any writing and to offer opinion. The learned Judge has further recorded that the said expert informed the Court 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 confined only to atomic research. - Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 265 of 2012 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2012 - A. Arumughaswamy, J. For the Appellant : S. Kadarkari, Advocate For the Respondent : None. JUDGMENT A. Arumughaswamy, J. 1. The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused against the order dated 6.6.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 3397 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 672 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the Accused and the Respondent is the Complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion should be sent for examination by an expert to offer his opinion regarding the age of the ink and the writings. The learned Counsel has relied on a few judgments of this Court. 5. Before proceeding further on facts, let us have a quick survey of the judgments from this Court on this aspect. 6. In S. Gopal v. D. Palachandran, 2008 (1) MLJ (Crl) 769, a question arose before this Court as to whether the age of the ink used for the writings on the disputed document could be ascertained by an expert in the Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Chennai. The learned Single Judge [Justice M. Jeyapaul] after having considered the said question held that there is no scientific expert available in the State with the Directorate of Forensic Science to scientifically test and find out the exact age of any such writing. 7. In the above said judgment, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that there is no expert available in the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, the document cannot be sent anywhere in this State for the purpose of scientific examination to find out the age of the ink used for the writings. The learned Judge did not say that there is no method at all avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court was concerned with the right of the Accused to have fair trial so as to send the document for comparison by an expert. It was never argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there are no experts available to examine the age. Therefore, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the Respondents is not in any manner helpful to them. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the Judgment of this Court in S. Gopal's case wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jeyapaul has held that there is no method to find out the age of the document with scientific accuracy. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit that this Judgment was prior to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would therefore submit that subsequently in another Judgment reported in V.P. Sankaran v. R. Uthirakumar, 2009 INDLAW MAD 1077, this Court has directed to forward the document for such opinion. In my considered opinion, a careful reading of the said Judgment would also go to show that there was no occasion for the learned Judge to answer the question as to whether there is any expert available in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence Act available who could be in a position to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink by adopting any scientific method. In view of all the above, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore. 12. The very same question again cropped up for consideration before yet another learned Single Judge [V. Periya Karuppiah, J.] in Indira Balasubramaniam and others v. S. Subash, C.R.P. NPD No. 3082 of 2008 dated 17.8.2009, wherein the learned Judge in para 16 has held as follows: 16. In view of the judgment of this Court discussed earlier there would not be any purpose in sending the impugned cheques for examination to ascertain its age of the ink used for filling up its particulars and signatures put up therein. Therefore, the request of the Petitioners to send the cheques through an Advocate Commissioner for Expert's opinion as to the age of the ink cannot be ordered since it does not result in any scientific accuracy. The Lower Court had not discussed these points but correctly rejected the claim of the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Lower Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending the documents to Forensic Science Department for opinion regarding the age of the ink used on the disputed document. 16. The same question once again poked its nose before this Court in A. Devaraj v. Rajammal, 2011 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 9 : 2011 (1) LW (Crl) 297. In the said case, before the learned Judge [Justice G.M. Akbar Ali], earlier judgment in R. Jagadeesan authored by yet another learned Judge (Justice S. Nagamuthu) and the judgment in C.R.P. (PD) No. 1475 of 2010 dated 2.11.2010 authored by yet another judge (Justice R.S. Ramanathan) were cited. Having considered the above, the learned Judge in paragraph 12 has held as follows: 72. In my considered opinion, the latest judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP (PD) No. 1475 of 2010 is not a contradictory judgment to the earlier judgment of the learned Single judge in the case of R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and another, 2010 (1) CTC 424. Hon'ble R.S. Ramanathan, J. has differentiated the earlier judgment of Hon'ble S. Nagamuthu, J., and has ordered sending the document to be examined by the CFSL, Hyderabad as they claim the facility is available. Further in para 15 of the judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the disputed document. When a specific query was made during interaction to the President as to what had happened to the documents already sent to his Laboratory seeking such opinion, he said that the said documents were only returned without offering any opinion. 20. Now, in order to ascertain as to whether there is any expert really available in the said laboratory since the request is to send the disputed document to the said laboratory in Hyderabad, this Court through the Registrar called for remarks from the said laboratory in Hyderabad. The Assistant Director and Scientist 'C', Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, has given his remarks through fax message to this Court vide Ref. CFSL(H)DOC/MISC./2012-13 wherein he has stated as follows: This is to submit that as there is no validated method, this laboratory does not undertake the examination for determining the relative/absolute age of the ink of the writings/signatures. From the above fax message from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, it is crystal clear that there is no expert available in the said Laboratory also to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents are sent to those experts for opinion. But, there is no such expert available in India to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 24. In this regard, we may come back to the judgment of Justice S. Nagamuthu in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and another, 2010 (1) CTC 424, wherein it is not the view taken by the learned Judge that there is no scientific method available for ascertaining the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document. The learned Judge has only held that there is no expert available, who can scientifically examine the same. Even now, the learned Judge had ascertained from the Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, that there is no expert, who can offer such opinion. Now, the Assistant Director, Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad has also stated that there is no such expert available anywhere in India. Thus, it is crystal clear that, as of now, there is no expert available in India. In A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 173, Justice S. Palanivelu has stated that in Forensic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
