Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.He further submitted that the case against the second petitioner is that the forensic report submitted in C.C.No.68 of 2003 was a computer typed one, the original report was manually typed and the discrepancies found in the forensic report which is a matter of serious in nature. TNFSL is an independent primary Body which conducts verification and examination of documents, handwriting, physical and clerical features of disputed articles. It is a restricted place. In the meanwhile, Crime No.1 of 2003 was registered by CB CID Metro against both the petitioners and one Sekar/A7. The case is that the said Sekar who was the property constable attached to the Avinashi Police produced the Tampered Report of the forensic department. On https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10.07.2002, he came to the forensic department, received a report and expended articles of the case. Thereafter, he produced the same before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi on 12.07.2002. In the meanwhile, the report tampered with and changed favouring the accused. According to the forensic officials, the report was typed in manual Typewriter and not computer typed as produced before the Court which was with correction and insertion. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.1 of 2003 was registered. This case culminated as charge sheet in C.C.No.7110 of 2005, a discharge petition filed before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.2333 of 2006 by the accused A1/Narayanasamy and A2/Gunachandran in Crl.M.P.No.2988 of 2006, both came to be dismissed, against which a Revision was filed before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.148 of 2007 by A1/Narayanasamy, this Court by order dated 03.09.2010 found the registration of the second First Information Report is in violation and not following T.T.Antony's case dictum, quashed the case in Crime https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis No.1 of 2002 giving liberty to the Investigating Agency to invoke provision under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the investigation of case transferred to the file of the CB CID by the orders of the Director General of Police, and further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., filed by the Inspector of Police, CB CID and additional charge sheet including N.Gunasekaran and Sekar as A6 & A7 was filed in C.C.No.32 of 2013.

13.The learned senior counsel further submitted that the forensic report of TNFSL, both manually typed and computer typed was submitted to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad, who examined both documents and gave a report. This report is in favour of the second petitioner and there is nothing to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis show that the petitioner had anything to do with the report. Further submitted that now the case against the main offender in C.C.No.32 of 2013 is proceeded based on the original forensic report, mechanically typed. The alleged computer typed forensic report not relied. The petitioner is being proceeded merely on assumption and presumption. There is no recovery pursuant to the confession of A7 and hence confession cannot be looked into. The only other material which is being projected against the second petitioner is that font size in the report and the printer available in the second petitioner's office are identical as per the report of the Director, Ramanujan Computing Centre, Anna University, Chennai which alone will not confirm any role of the petitioner. The data matrix printer format will be one and the same universally. It is not the case of the prosecution that the printer is in exclusive possession and with petitioner's usage. Merely on assumption and presumption the petitioner not to undergo the ordeal of trial. The second petitioner, a Scientist with credential who https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have authored several books, presented several research papers, a visiting faculty, a Guest Lecturer and also an excellent trainer in the field of Forensic Science, due to the above case his entire professional career is stigmatized and unable to carry on with his professional and research work, submit research papers, etc. He further submitted that due to the internal bickering in TNFSL organization, he is falsely implicated in this case. The TNFSL Department knowing about the same, not conducted any departmental enquiry, further citing the above case, not granted the petitioner, his terminal benefits. The petitioner is more concerned and worried on the stigma attached to him due to the above case. The petitioner is retired and in the evening of his life. Now asking the petitioner on the insufficient materials to undergo the ordeal of trial, that to at a far off place would cause great hardship. There is no material to show that the petitioner is a beneficiary in any manner.