TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 RW2 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 6.6.2012. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner has come up with this Revision Petition. 3. 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 Accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, there were two conflicting judgments on the same subject. 8. These two judgments came to be considered by yet another judgment [Justice S. Nagamuthu] in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) CTC 424 : 2010 Cri.L.J. 2917. In that case, after having considered the above two conflicting views taken by two different learned Judges, the learned Single Judge had summoned the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to the Court. The said expert is the Head of the Department of the Document Division of Forensic Science. The said expert informed the Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department to scientifically ascertain the age of any writing and to offer opinion. The learned Judge has further recorded that the said expert informed the Court that there is one institution known as Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government Organisation confined only to atomic research. 9. Having considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondents. 11. After the said judgment, it appeared that the issue was almost settled. Once again, the very same question was raised before the same learned Single Judge [Justice S. Nagamuthu] in V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi, 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 93 : 2010 (1) Crimes 833 : 2010 (1) LW (Crl) 879. The learned Counsel, who appeared for the Petitioner therein, had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash, AIR 1971 SC 1093, wherein in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 10. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949, 1950 & 1959, and requested the Director to determine the age of the writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by comparison. The Director on April 17, 1965 wrote that it 'was impossible to give any definite opinion by such comparisons particularly when the comparison writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and not stored under the same conditions as the documents under examination', and that it 'will n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o expert in the State, who can offer an opinion regarding the age of the ink. 14. Subsequently, the very same question came up for consideration before yet another learned Single Judge [Justice S. Palanivelu] in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 173 : 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 471. Before the learned Judge, earlier judgments, more particularly, the judgment in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and another, 2010 (1) CTC 424, cited supra was also relied on. When it was argued before the learned Judge, he was not convinced with the conclusion arrived at earlier on the said question by yet another learned Judge of this Court. In that judgment, the learned Judge has referred to a number of authoritative books on Forensic Sciences and finally held that there are scientific methods available for the purpose of finding out the age of the ink found on the document. However, I find that in the said judgment, the learned Judge has not specified the expert to whom the document is to be sent for the purpose of offering opinion regarding the age of the ink used on the document. In paragraph 32 of the judgment the learned Judge has concluded as follows: 32. In v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If the Revision Petitioner fails to produce the admitted signature for comparison as stated above within the stipulated period, the Revision Petitioner is not entitled to ask for sending the documents for comparison. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. 17. After the said judgment, this Court is informed that a number of Petitions were filed again in various Court across the State for sending the disputed documents to Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Sciences. According to the learned Judge though it may be true that there is no expert in the State, the learned Judge was informed that there was an expert in the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory. It is because of this though the learned Judge had concurred with the view taken in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and another, 2010 (1) CTC 424, cited supra, had directed the document to be sent for examination in the said Laboratory. 18. It is in these circumstances, the same question, almost vexed, has again come up before me for consideration. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as I have already stated, pointed out, has contended that the document should be forwarded to the expert attached....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence Act reads thus: 45. Opinion of experts.-- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations: (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question....