Madras High Court
Panneerselvam vs S. Bakkiyam on 6 August, 2012
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06-08-2012 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Crl.Revision Case No. 1811 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 Panneerselvam .. Petitioner Versus S. Bakkiyam .. Respondent Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 26.09.2011 made in C.M.P. No. 854 of 2011 in S.T.C. No. 306 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ramana Reddy For Respondent : No appearance ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 26.09.2011 made in C.M.P. No. 854 of 2011 in S.T.C. No. 306 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem. In and by the said order dated 26.09.2011, the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying to forward the cheque in question to forensic sciences expert for comparision of the age of the ink.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.T.C. No. 306 of 2009 instituted by the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed CMP No. 854 of 2011 contending that the ink in which the petitioner had put his signature in the cheque in question and the ink by which the dates and amounts were filled varies and therefore, while disowining his liability to pay the cheque amount, the petiitoner sought for sending the cheque in question to the forensic authorities for comparision so as to disprove the case of the complainant/respondent herein. Further, the cheque in question is non-MICR NCE coded cheque which was not in existence at that point of time and therefore it is clear that the cheque in question was issued long back. Therefore also, the petitioner sought for comparision of the signature by which the dates and amount were filled in the cheque in question by an expert. The Court below, without considering the above aspects has dismissed the application and theefore the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Even though the respondent was served, there is no representation made on behalf of the respondent.
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 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 automic 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 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."
5. In the light of the above decision, the Court below is right in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to send the disputed cheque in question for ascertaining the age of the ink or the variation in the ink in the subject matter of the cheque.
6. The Court below also found that if the cheque in question was issued long back, as contended by the petitioner/accused, the same can be proved by way of bank records and therefore also the comparision of the admitted signature and the alleged disputed signature are unnecessary. Such a reasoning assigned by the court below is valid and justified. Further, the petitioner has filed the instant application only after three years from the date of institution of the case by the respondent. In any view of the matter, in the light of the decision of this Court, mentioned supra, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. Consequently, Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed.
06-08-2012 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh Crl.R.C. No. 1811 of 2011 06-08-2012