Dismissal of Petition for Advocate-commissioner in Forgery Case due to Lack of Standing and Insufficient Evidence

The Court dismissed the petition seeking the appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to investigate alleged interpolation and forgery in the Minutes Book. It ruled that the petitioner lacked standing to raise the issue on behalf of the company and found no evidence of wrongdoing. The Court emphasized the limitations of expert opinion in determining authenticity and concluded that further scientific investigation was unwarranted. The lower court was directed to proceed with the suit independently of these findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of Advocate-commissioner u/r 10A and 10B of Order 26 CPC.
2. Allegation of interpolation, forgery, and backdating in the Minutes Book.
3. Relevance of expert opinion and scientific investigation.

Summary:

1. Appointment of Advocate-commissioner u/r 10A and 10B of Order 26 CPC:
The petitioner, the first defendant in the suit, filed an Interlocutory Application seeking the appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to take possession of the original Minutes Book of the Board of Directors and deliver it to the Forensic Department for expert opinion. The petitioner alleged that certain entries in the Minutes Book were interpolated or forged.

2. Allegation of interpolation, forgery, and backdating in the Minutes Book:
The petitioner claimed that the Board's Resolution dated 30.03.2005, as recorded in the Minutes Book, was backdated and interpolated with malafide intention. The petitioner argued that the alleged agreement of sale dated 10.01.2004 was not ratified by the company and that the entries in the Minutes Book were manipulated.

3. Relevance of expert opinion and scientific investigation:
The Court noted that the disputed portion of the Minutes Book was written by the same person using the same ink, and there was no change in handwriting. The Court emphasized that expert opinion is relevant but not conclusive proof. The Court referred to several precedents, including *State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram* and *Chandran Udayar v. Kasivel*, highlighting that the opinion of handwriting experts should be used cautiously and that the age of the ink cannot be determined with scientific accuracy.

Judgment:
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi to raise the plea on behalf of the company. The Court found no evidence of interpolation or forgery in the Minutes Book and noted that the original Minutes Book was not produced by the petitioner. The Court concluded that there was no scope for scientific investigation as the same ink was used, and the other Directors did not dispute the entries. The petition was deemed legally unsustainable and dismissed, with the Court directing the lower court to dispose of the suit on merits, uninfluenced by the findings in this order.

---