Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A. ARUMUGHASWAMY, J
K. Vairavan
Versus
Selvaraj
Crl. R.C. (MD) No.265 of 2012 & M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2012
Decided On: 18-07-2012
(B)Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872)-Sec.45-Criminal trial- Expert opinion-Age-Determination-In the absence of an availability of expert in a field, mere development of science in that area in the world would not be a ground to call for such scientific opinion.
Science has developed so much and that it is possible. As per the leading books referred to by the learned Judge, there is a scientific method available. But, knowing a method alone would not serve the purpose to implement the method. Equipment’s are necessary and person with the expertise knowledge is also necessary. If only there is a person who has special skill in the field who is armed with sufficient equipment’s, then only he can use the known scientific method to offer his opinion. But, in respect of age of the ink though there are scientific method available in India, there is neither such scientific expert available nor equipment available. It is because of these reasons, I have to necessarily hold that for getting an opinion regarding the age of the ink, the disputed document cannot be sent anywhere as of now. I would make it clear that in future, if any expert emerges and equipment’s are also made available, then, after identifying him, the court may forward the disputed documents to him for opinion. Until such time, the document cannot be sent anywhere for the purpose of getting opinion regarding the age of the ink used for writing the disputed document. Para 25.
1. The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused against the order dated 06.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P.No.3397 of 2012 in S.T.C.No.672 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.
2. Thefacts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in the case. The respondent alleges that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was not signed and issued by him to the respondent. It is his further contention that there was neither legally enforceable debt nor liability on the part of the petitioner impelling him to issue the cheque in question.
3. During trial of the case, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate to forward the cheque in question for opinion from a handwriting expert. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate forwarded the admitted signatures of the petitioner along with the disputed cheque for the purpose of comparison by an expert. On such comparison, the expert gave opinion that the disputed signature on the cheque would have been made by the petitioner. The said expert was examined as R.W.2 before the trial court. After the expert's opinion, the petitioner again filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3397 of 2012 requesting the court to forward the same disputed cheque to an expert for the purpose of finding out the age of the ink used for the writings. In fact, the endeavour of the petitioner is to prove that the cheque would not have been drawn as on the date mentioned thereon. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 06.06.2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.
4. The vehement contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision is that the opinion already given by the Forensic Department that the signature found on the document would have been made by the accused need not in any manner be helpful for the court to come to a right conclusion.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said opinion is only to the effect that the disputed signature was made by the accused. There is no opinion already given that the said signature and the writings on the disputed cheque would have been made as on the date mentioned in the document. Further, according to the learned counsel, unless, the document is subjected to examination by an expert to find out the age of the ink and the writings, the petitioner would not be in a possession to prove his case. Thus, as a part of fair trial, according to the learned counsel, the cheque in question should be sent for examination by an expert to offer his opinion regarding the age of the ink and the writings. The learned counsel has relied on a few judgements of this court.
6. Before proceeding further on facts, let us have a quick survey of the judgements from this Court on this aspect.
7. In S.Gopalv. D.Palachandran , 2008 (1) MLJ (Crl) 769, a question arose before this Court as to whether the age of the ink used for the writings on the disputed document could be ascertained by an expert in the Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Chennai. The learned single Judge [Justice M.Jeyapaul] after having considered the said question held that there is no scientific expert available in the State with the Directorate of Forensic Science to scientifically test and find out the exact age of any such writing.
8. In the above said judgement, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that there is no expert available in the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, the document cannot be sent anywhere in this State for the purpose of scientific examination to find out the age of the ink used for the writings. The learned Judge did not say that there is no method at all available for the purpose of giving an expert opinion in respect of the age of the ink. Subsequently, the ve
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
