Adarsh Bio-Tech Private Limited vs Srinivasa Polymers

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 966

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Adarsh Bio-Tech Private Limited and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Srinivasa Polymers and Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 2479 of 2023
Decided On : 08-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C. Kumar

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 16 Rule 1 and Rule 14 - Admissibility of forensic expert testimony in civil proceedings - Court can summon witnesses from criminal cases for civil suits without barring relevance, provided evidence is properly proved under the Evidence Act. (Paras 1, 5, 16, 19)

(B) Expert Opinion - An expert report is admissible only if the expert is cross-examined to establish reliability; evidence from criminal proceedings may be admitted in civil cases under certain conditions. (Paras 10, 13, 20)

(C) Standard of Proof - Different standards in civil and criminal proceedings inform the admissibility of evidence from one type of suit in another; courts retain discretion in evidentiary procedures. (Paras 6, 15, 22)

Facts of the case:
This petition challenges an order allowing the summoning of an expert from the State Forensic Laboratory to produce a report as evidence in a civil money recovery suit after defendants were previously convicted in a related criminal case. The defendants contended the report should not be admissible since the expert was not previously cross-examined. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court maintained that summoning the expert was necessary for a fair trial and did not imply that the report could be immediately relied upon without proper consideration of its admissibility and relevance in the civil case. (Paras 19, 24)

Issues: The primary issues discussed were the conditions under which evidence from criminal cases may be considered in civil proceedings and the requirements for proving the admissibility of expert reports. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the summoning of the expert does not automatically endorse the documentary evidence's relevance, emphasizing the need for cross-examination to validate the findings presented. (Paras 20, 24)

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed; the earlier order allowing the summoning of the expert was upheld.

Table of Content
1. interlocutory application for evidence. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. need for expert witness in evidentiary matters. (Para 6 , 7)
3. procedure for summoning witnesses under cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. criminal evidence admissible in civil proceedings. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 , 20)
5. review of expert testimony and report's relevancy. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. dismissal of revision petition. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2023 in I.A. No. 422 of 2023 in O.S. No. 378 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Mechal.

2. Heard Sri. C. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the Defendants No. 1 & 2 in the suit filed for recovery of money by the Respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff.

4. The Respondent No. 1 herein, filed an interlocutory application in the suit under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking to summon the ‘Assistant Director, State Forensic Laboratory Telangana State, at Red Hills’ along with FSL Report/Opinion vide Report file No. DCV/523/2018 dated 23.02.2019. The Respondent No. 1 claimed that the said document was adduced as evidence in C.C. No. 44 of 2012 before the XV M.M. Cyberabad Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioners herein were convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2023 allowed the said application. The present revision is filed aggrieved by the said order.

5. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they had preferred Crl. Appeal No. 734 of 2014 before the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, against the conviction in C.C. No. 44 of 2012; and that vide order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioners herein were acquitted. That apart the petitioners herein contend that the Respondent No. 1 had failed to prove the said FSL report by cross-examining the handwriting expert before the trial Court in C.C. No. 44 of 2012. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal , 1999 INSC 393 : (1999) 7 SCC 280 , it is contended that a report submitted by an expert cannot be automatically admitted in evidence unless the said expert is examined as a witness. Thus, it is contended that since the FSL report in question was not proved by the Respondent No. 1 in C.C. No. 44 of 2012, no reliance can be placed on the said document.

6. The petitioners further contend that, evidence forming part of and adduced in a criminal case cannot be considered in a civil proceeding, as the standard of proof in both proceedings is different. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah , 2005 INSC 129 : (2005) 4 SCC 370 and Mitthulal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (1975) 3 SCC 529 .

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus contends that, the proper course of action in such cases would be to make a fresh application to send the document for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872.

8. I have taken note the submissions made.

9. A party to the suit who is not in a position to summon a witness on whose evidence he seeks to place reliance on, may make an application to the Court seeking to summon such a person as a witness or to produce any document. Order 16 of the Code provides the procedure for a party seeking to summon such witnesses who are beyond his control [See Smt. Rita Pandit vs. Atul Pandit , AIR 2005 AP 253 ].

10. Since the issue at hand revolves around summoning of a witness by a Court it is relevant to discuss the scheme of Order 16 of the Code. Under Order 16 of the Code the court can summon a witness in exercise of powers under Rule 1 as well as under Rule 14. It is or