High Court orders analysis of disputed documents by government lab for ink age determination

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The High Court directed the lower Court to send the disputed documents to the Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, a Central Government Organization with the facility to determine the age of ink. The defendant was instructed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- and provide the full and correct address of the facility. This decision underscores the importance of allowing defendants the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of documents through scientific means, provided the necessary facilities and expertise are available.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity of promissory notes and determination of the age of ink.
2. Defendant's denial of debt and claim of document fabrication.
3. Trial Court's dismissal of the application to send documents for expert analysis.
4. Legal precedents and scientific feasibility of determining the age of ink.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authenticity of Promissory Notes and Determination of the Age of Ink:
The defendant contested the authenticity of four promissory notes, claiming they were fabricated. The defendant sought to send these notes to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink used in the signatures and recitals, arguing that this would prove the documents were not contemporaneous with the alleged transactions. The Trial Court dismissed this application, citing the impracticality of determining the age of the ink after six years and referencing the case of Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Bala Krishna, which stated that such determinations could lead to complications.

2. Defendant's Denial of Debt and Claim of Document Fabrication:
The defendant denied borrowing any money from the plaintiff and claimed that the promissory notes were fabricated as part of a collusion involving the plaintiff, his son, and another individual. The defendant asserted that he never signed the promissory notes or issued the cheque in question. The plaintiff, however, maintained that the defendant had admitted to signing the notes and issuing the cheque, which was later dishonored.

3. Trial Court's Dismissal of the Application to Send Documents for Expert Analysis:
The Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application to send the promissory notes for expert analysis, reasoning that the age of the ink could not be determined after six years. The Court also noted that even if such a facility existed, it might not yield definitive results due to potential complications such as the age of the pen or ink used.

4. Legal Precedents and Scientific Feasibility of Determining the Age of Ink:
The defendant's counsel cited several legal precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in T. Rajalingam @ Sambam v. State of Telangana, which supported the defendant's right to have documents examined to determine the age of the ink. The Court in this case highlighted that the determination of the age of ink is a valuable right for the defense and should be allowed unless deemed vexatious or a delay tactic. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Shashi Kumar Banerjee's Case, which acknowledged the possibility of determining the age of ink through chemical tests.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The High Court directed the lower Court to send the disputed documents to the Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, a Central Government Organization with the facility to determine the age of ink. The defendant was instructed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- and provide the full and correct address of the facility. This decision underscores the importance of allowing defendants the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of documents through scientific means, provided the necessary facilities and expertise are available.

---