The determination of the age of ink used in disputed documents through forensic methods is currently unfeasible, and applications for such must be timely and relevant; otherwise, they may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 in IA No.82 of 2023 in OS 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 OS 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 IA 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 IA. Hence, the present CRP is filed.

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 DW1.

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 v. Selvaraj , Crl. Rc. (MD) No.265 of 2012 dated 18.07.2012 , 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 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 anywhere 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