Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kommu Ramesh vs Nallamalli Bapireddy on 2 December, 2024
1
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.2281 of 2023
% 05.11.2024
# Kommu Ramesh .... Petitioners
Versus
$ Nallamalli Bapireddy, ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s. A.S.C. Bose
! Counsel for the Respondents :
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) K.Vairavan Vs. Selvaraj (Crl.Rc.(MD).No.265 of 2012
dated 18.7.2012) CRP.No.6069 of 2016 and batch
dated 07.04.2017
2) 2018 (6) ALD 751
3) (2015) SCC Online Mad 5774
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
C.R.P.No.2281 of 2023
% 29.12.2023
# Oggu Ananda Kumar (died) & 2 others ... Petitioners
Versus
$ Tammu Vijaya Lakshmi & Another ... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 29.12.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordship wish to see the Fair
Copy of the Order? Yes/No
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
3
APHC010454222023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2281/2023
Between:
Kommu Ramesh ...PETITIONER
AND
Nallamalli Bapireddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A S C BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2281 of 2023
ORDER:
Present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 13.07.2023 in I.A.No.82 of 2023 in O.S.No.90 of 2019 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. The Petitioner herein is the Defendant in the Suit.
2. The Respondent herein filed Suit in O.S.No.90 of 2019 seeking for recovery of Suit amount of Rs.4,68,346/- with subsequent interest. During the course of Trial, the Petitioner herein/Defendant filed I.A.No.82 of 2023 under Section 45 of Evidence Act, to determine the age of the ink of the signature on the alleged Suit promissory note dated 26.06.2016 and year of the used revenue stamp on the alleged suit promissory note of Government Hand Writing Expert, Forensic Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad and to submit report.
3. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering rival contentions dismissed the I.A. Hence, the present C.R.P is filed.
5
4. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Notice to the Respondent through Trial Court advocate, was served and proof of service is filed. None appeared for the Respondent.
5. The case of the Petitioner is that when he was in need of money, he had approached the third person for borrowing an amount of Rs.25,000/- and executed a promissory note on 22.11.2007. But he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The Trial Court has dismissed the I.A., on the ground that the application was filed at the fag end of the Trial and only with an intent to drag on the Suit proceedings. The Trial Court also observed that the Petitioner did not take any steps before giving his evidence as DW.1.
6. Even ignoring the observations of the Trial Court, it is highly doubtful whether a science, to determine the age of ink, is available with the Forensic Department. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in K.Vairavan Vs. Selvaraj (Crl.Rc.(MD).No.265 of 2012 dated 18.7.2012) considered this aspect and after referring to a speech of President of Forensic Director held as under;
"20. Very recently, the President of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State was invited to give a lecture in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy at Chennai on the subject "disputed document". During the course of interaction, a question was posed to him - Is there any expert available for offering 6 opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document? - In categorical terms, he informed that there is no such expert available not only in his Laboratory but in any Laboratory throughout the country at present and, therefore, it is not at all possible to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink used 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."
7. This Court speaking through Justice V.Ramasubrahmanian in (CRP.No.6069 of 2016 and batch dated 07.04.2017) after referring to the above extracted Judgment of Madras High court held as under;
"13. In a rather painstaking exercise, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court has quoted extensively from (i) Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials by B.R. Sharma, (ii) Suspect Documents their scientific examination by Wilson Harrison and (iii) Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents by Jan Seaman Kelly. But none of those portions indicate any where that the outcome of such examination of the ink could be very fruitful.
14. It is an admitted fact that the science relating to forensic examination of Handwriting, especially in relation to the fixation of the age of the ink, is not perfect. In cases of this nature any reference of a document to the Handwriting Expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the ink was 5 years old at the time of institution of the suit or 3 years old at the time of institution of the suit, is not likely to 7 bring any fruitful result. Interestingly in one of the books relied upon by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, namely Handwriting Forensics by B.R. Sharma, Chapter 25 contains a Glossary under the title Documenpaedia. In the said chapter, there is an interesting portion relating to INK AGE. This portion reads as follows:
INK AGE: Age of the writing can sometime be given in relative terms. Upkeep of the document plays an important role. Ink has been extensively studied to fix the age of the documents. There are two aspects which have been explored.
The compositions of inks in common usage have been changing continuously. It was the carbon ink (known as Indian Ink) to start with. It changed to irontannin inks, then to water-soluble dye inks and later to organic solvent inks as for ball pens. New dye inks are coming up continuously. Thin Layer Chromatography (LTC) can easily identify the ink dye even from an ink line without visibly damaging the writing line. High Performance TLC gives better results. The date of induction of a particular ink, therefore can be ascertained with the help of its manufacturer. If a document is purported to be written prior to its induction of the ink, it is obviously false.
In some countries data relating to induction of various inks is kept for ready reference.
Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing.
Inks diffuse in the paper. The extent of diffusion may give some guess about the age of writing.
Iron inks become darker in colour with age. The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing.8
In some countries age marker chemicals, usually radioactive materials, are added to the ink. They indicate the age of the writing.
Fresh ink is easily smudged. Older inks do not smudge easily. The ease of smudging may give a rough estimate of the age of the writing.
The methods listed above look impressive. But in practice it is seldom that correct age of the document can be determined as there are many variables which affect the changes in the ink.
Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India.
15. Therefore, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by referring the document to the Handwriting Expert. Hence, the dismissal of the applications by the Court below cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed."
8. The Judgment of this Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah v. Numburu Mohan Rao1 referred the document for determination of age of ink to Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai after relying on a Paragraph 4 of Madras High Court in A.Inayathullah vs A. Ramesh2. This reference appears to be erroneous as in paragraph 4 of the judgment, a reference was made to R.Jagadeesan vs. N. Ayyasamy and another 3 at paragraph 4. In the said case, the Madras High Court referred that Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai has the mechanism to identify the age 1 2018 (6) ALD 751 2 (2015) SCC Online Mad 5774 3 (2010 (1) CTC 424) 9 of ink on the document, but even then, the determination is only approximate. Apart from that, it was observed that the said institute is involved in atomic research, the documents relating to prosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent.
9. For better understanding, the paragraph 4 of the judgment A.Inayathullah vs A. Ramesh relied upon by this Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah 's case (1 supra) is extracted below;
"4. At the outset, the Petitioner admits his signature in the cheque in question and he only contends that the ink by which the dates and amount filled therein differs. In other words, the Petitioner seeks to ascertain the age of the ink by which the dates and amounts were filled in the cheque which cannot be done in view of the decision of this Court reported in (R. Jagadeesan vs. N. Ayyasamy and another) (2010 (1) CTC 424). In that decision, this Court held that there is no such facility available in India, especially in Tamil Nadu to compare the age of the ink. In Para Nos. 7, 8 and 9, it was held as follows:-
"7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said statement, this Court had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.R. Elango to request either the Director or the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, to be present before this Court to explain the position. Accordingly, today, Mr. A.R. Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is kind enough to be present before this Court. According to him, he is the 10 Head of the Document Division of the department. 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 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. 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. He would further submit that if a document is sent for comparision, with the available scientific knowledge, opinion to the extent as to whether the same could have been made an individual, by comparing his admitted handwritings or signatures, alone could be made. He would further submit that if there are writings with two different inks, in the same document, that can alone be found out. But he would be sure enough to say that the age of the writings cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion.
8. In view of the above clear and unambiguous statement made by no less a person than the Head of the Department of Forensic Science, I am of the view that the 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. If any document is so sent, certainly the department will say that no opinion could be offered. As a matter of fact, the Assistant 11 Director would inform the Court that already many such documents, which were sent to them by various Courts in the State for such opinion, have been returned by them with the report that no such opinion could be offered.
9. 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."
10. This Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah's case (1 supra) appears to have not noticed the above emphasized portion of the Judgment in entirety. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present Revision.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.11.2024 Note: L.R copy be marked (B/o) Pnr 12 130 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2281 of 2023 Date: 05.11.2024 Note: L.R copy be marked (B/o) Pnr