High Court ruling on document production & forensic analysis stresses proof standards

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision to allow the plaintiff to produce certain documents, emphasizing that mere exhibition does not equate to proving contents. Regarding the rejection of the petitioner's application for forensic examination of ink on a document, the High Court found the Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach due to the evolution of law allowing scientific analysis. The High Court quashed the previous order and directed the document to be referred for forensic analysis to determine ink age and signatures, with the Trial Court instructed to expedite the case resolution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of documents produced by the plaintiff under Exh.189.
2. Rejection of the petitioner's application Exh.190 seeking forensic examination of the ink on a document.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Documents Produced by the Plaintiff under Exh.189:
The petitioner, the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2006, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 09.10.2015, which allowed the plaintiff to produce certain documents, including a cheque, a cheque return memo, and a letter from the bank. The Trial Court concluded that the evidentiary value of these documents would be considered at the final stage and permitted their exhibition as they were in original form. The petitioner was concerned that he would not get an opportunity to confront these documents. However, the High Court found this apprehension misplaced, stating that mere exhibition does not equate to proving the contents. The Indian Evidence Act requires the contents to be proven through due procedure, hence the petitioner would not be prejudiced. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the Trial Court must remain conscious of these observations.

2. Rejection of Petitioner's Application Exh.190 for Forensic Examination:
The petitioner also contested the Trial Court's rejection of his application Exh.190, which sought to refer a document to a Forensic Laboratory to determine the age of the ink. The respondent argued that a similar application (Exh.44) had been rejected six years earlier, invoking the rule of estoppel, as per the Kerala High Court's decision in Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala. However, the High Court noted that the earlier judgment did not involve a retrial, unlike this case where the suit was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing for new evidence.

The High Court referenced its own judgment in Vijay Achyut Ashtikar, which acknowledged the availability of technology to determine the age of ink, supporting the petitioner's request. Additionally, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mr. Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Mr. Nuburu Mohan Rao also recognized the feasibility of such forensic analysis by institutions like Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai.

Given the directions for a retrial and the evolution of law allowing for scientific examination of documents, the High Court found that the Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic approach. The rejection of Exh.44 should not impede the petitioner's request. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.10.2015 and allowed application Exh.190.

The Trial Court was directed to refer the document to Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, to determine the age of the ink on the document and signatures. The petitioner was to deposit the requisite fees, and the agency was to submit its report within 45 days. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the resolution of Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2006, preferably by September 30, 2019.

---