Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Velagapudi Kishore Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna – Respondent
CRP No.2 of 2025
Decided on : 05-03-2025
The legal document discusses the issue of forensic examination of ink on a promissory note in a civil proceeding. The court emphasized that there is no scientific method currently available to reliably ascertain the age of ink, which limits the evidentiary value of such forensic tests. Multiple laboratories, including government forensic science laboratories and BARC, have returned reports indicating the absence of scientific techniques to determine the age of ink or revenue stamps conclusively (!) (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that while the petitioner sought to have the promissory note examined to establish the age of the ink and the revenue stamp, the scientific community recognizes the limitations in this area. The reports from the laboratories clearly state that there is no authenticated procedure to determine the precise age of ink or handwriting, and attempts to do so are often inconclusive due to various variables affecting ink aging (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court noted that the previous order had directed the document to be sent for expert opinion, and subsequent attempts to obtain such an opinion were unsuccessful due to the scientific incapability of establishing the ink’s age. The rejection of the application for forensic examination was deemed appropriate and consistent with the current state of forensic science. The court also highlighted that the mere fact that inks or pens were manufactured years prior does not necessarily mean they were used immediately, which complicates age determination (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court found no illegality or error in the trial court’s decision to reject the application for forensic examination based on the absence of scientific methods to establish the age of ink. It reaffirmed that seeking such forensic opinion, under the current scientific limitations, is unwarranted and only serves to delay proceedings. Accordingly, the civil revision petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the evidentiary value of forensic tests must be grounded in scientifically reliable methods (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan agreement and dispute over promissory note. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's application for forensic examination. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. summary of the factual background of the case. (Para 7) |
| 4. court rejects scientific investigation claims. (Para 8 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's observations on previous laboratory findings. (Para 9 , 25) |
| 6. laboratories' inability to determine ink age. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. limits of forensic examination in determining document age. (Para 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. determination of the ratio decidendi. (Para 18) |
| 9. court's discretion in expert referrals. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant challenging the Order dated 26.11.2024 in IA No.700 of 2024 in OS No.1141 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed OS No.1141 of 2019 for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.03.2018 for business purposes and family necessities and a promissory note in the presence of the scribe and attesters was executed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @ 24% per annum with compound interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff had been constantly approaching the defendant for repayment. Towards part payment of the principal and interest, the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 and as per the instructions of the defendant, the said cheque was presented for clearance on 18.05.2019, but the same was returned on 20.05.2019 with a memo for the reason of 'funds insufficient'. The defendant did not repay and therefore the suit was filed for an amount of Rs.15,75,400/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum against the defendant.
4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant submitted that he never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note nor issued the cheque. The defendant had no necessity to borrow such a huge amount as he was having sufficient bank balance. There were some disputes which arose amongst the defendant, his father and brother and in connection therewith, they, in connivance with the plaintiff got fraudulently pressed into service the alleged promissory note and cheque which were never executed or issued by the defendant. There was no relationship of creditor and debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant and there was no legally enforceable debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant.
5. In the said suit, the defendant filed IA No.700 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and under Section 151 CPC to send the promissory note dated 20.03.2018 to the Work Manager Revenue Stamp Examiner, Nasik, Maharashtra for examination and find out the period in which the revenue stamp worth Rs.1/- affixed on the suit printed promissory note, and the age of the ink in the pen used for filling up the suit printed promissory note and subscription of the signatures on the revenue stamp affixed thereon, the attester and scribe and to submit a detail report.
6. The plaintiff/respondent filed objections/counter and denied the contents of the application and further submitted that the application was filed to protract the proceedings of the suit. The defendant had not taken the plea of forgery. Previously, the defendant had filed IA No.865 of 2022 for the same purpose, with the same relief on 28.09.2022 for sending the same promissory note Ex.A1 to the Director, Forensic Science L
AI
The absence of scientific methods to ascertain the age of ink invalidates applications to examine promissory notes for evidentiary purposes, emphasizing the need for substantive proof in legal procee....
Promissory Note – Mere determination of age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly maker has written/signed document.
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 dismisse....
There is no scientific method to determine the age of the writing or ink, as established in previous decisions.
The absence of reliable scientific methods to determine the age of ink or documents limits the admissibility of such evidence in court, impacting the ability to establish the execution date of a prom....
There is no scientific method available to determine the age of the ink on a document. The absence of a scientific method to assess the age of handwriting renders attempts to find out the age of the ....
Determining the age of ink on a document does not assist in establishing its validity when the signature is not disputed, as held under Section 45.
There is no mechanism to determine age of ink – Expert opinion to check age of ink cannot help to determine date of writing of document.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
