Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumari ... vs Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana on 13 December, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010167002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1379 and 1386 of 2024
Between:
Smt. Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumari Jyothi and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. POOLLA SRAVANTH
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in the present Civil Revision Petitions is similar and therefore the same are disposed of by this Common order.
2) The CRP No.1379 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 04.03.2024, passed in I.A.No.837 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2020, and CRP No.1386 of 2024 is filed against the order in I.A.No.838 of 2023 in O.S.No.231 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the 3rd Additional Judicial 2 Magistrate of First Class cum III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada.
3) The petitioners herein are the defendants in the said suits. The respondent - plaintiff filed the said suits for recovery of amounts on the basis of promissory notes stated to have been executed by one Badam Pandu Ranga Rao, father of the petitioners herein. Contesting the matter, the petitioners-defendants filed a written statement, inter alia, taking a defence that the alleged pronote is forged document and the signature on the same does not belong to their father. Seeking to refer the alleged promissory note for experts' opinion at Baba Atomic Research Center, Mumbai (for short "the BARC"), to determine the age of the paper as well as the ink containing the signature, the petitioners moved the above mentioned Interlocutory Applications. The respondent-plaintiff contested the matter and after considering the rival contentions, the impugned orders in the present Civil Revision Petitions were passed.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter by placing heavy reliance on the decision of a learned Judge in Namineni Audi Seshaiah v Mr. Numburu Mohan Rao1. He submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the matter in a proper perspective and referred the documents for the opinion of the expert, as sought for by the petitioners. He submits that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in 1 AIR 2019 Hyderabad 57=AIRonline 2018 Hyd 243 3 Gottipati Venugopal v Gaddam Vijay Kumar and Another2, on which reliance is placed by the learned Trial Judge, is not applicable to the facts of the case. He submits that in any event, if the document in question is sent to the experts, his opinion on the same would help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the pronote alleged to have been executed by the petitioners' father. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the orders under Revision and to allow the Interlocutory Applications.
5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge. He submits that the learned Trial Judge assigned assigning cogent reasons for dismissing the applications by relying on the latest decision of this Court, wherein, the legal precedents on the subject were elaborately discussed. He submits that in fact, the petitioners on the earlier occasion filed a petition to send the suit promissory note for the opinion of the expert at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur (for short "the CFSL") to decide the age of the pronote and writings thereon and a report was already furnished by the expert. He submits that the second application by the petitioners is, therefore, not sustainable. In so far as the decision in Namineni Audi Seshaiah case (1 supra) on which reliance is placed, he submits that in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v Maddirala Prabhakara 2 2023 SCC OnLine AP 3551 4 Reddy3, a learned Judge had elaborately referred the issue with regard to the determination of the age of ink and was not inclined to interfere with the Trial Court order of the dismissing the applications seeking to reopen the evidence and send the suit promissory note for examination to a handwriting expert. The relevant portion of the order, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:
"14. 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.
15. 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 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.3
2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 74 5 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.
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.
16. 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."
6) In Gottipati Venu Gopal case (2 supra), the learned Judge was dealing with an order whereunder the application moved for sending the cheque to the expert for determination of age of the ink was dismissed. The learned Judge referring to the decision in Polana Jawaharlala Nehru case (3 supra), as also the other decisions, dismissed the criminal petition. Though in Namineni Audi Seshaiah case (1 supra), the learned Judge opined that in "BARC" there is a facility to find out the approximate rang of the time during which the writings would have been made and where the facility of determination of age of the ink is available, this Court, in the light of the factors which may impact the determination of the age of 6 the ink, as extracted above, is inclined to hold that no useful purpose will be served in referring the document in question for the opinion of the expert and it would be of no consequence. Be that as it may.
7) The learned Trial Judge, after considering the matter, including the relevant aspect that the petitioners had already sought the opinion of the expert at "CFSL" and that the same with reference to the signature of the petitioners' father was already furnished, was not inclined to allow the prayer for sending the very same document for the opinion of the expert at a different institution. The Order of the learned Trial Judge is well considered and this Court see no illegality or perversity warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8) For the afore going reasons, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
9) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:13.12.2024 SSV 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1379 and 1386 of 2024 Date: 13.12.2024 SSV