G.Chalapathi vs P.M.Praveen
2024 Latest Caselaw 1092 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G.Chalapathi vs P.M.Praveen on 9 February, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3216 of 2023

ORDER:

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.57 of

2017 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor District

against the petitioner for recovery of money on the basis of

promissory note. The petitioner, after the said pro-note had

been marked as Exhibit-A1, filed I.A.No.90 of 2023 in

O.S.No.57 of 2017 under Section-45 of the Indian Evidence

Act, for sending the pro-note to the Forensic Science

Laboratory to determine the age of the ink used to fill in the

necessary particulars in the body of the pro-note to determine

the age of the signature of the petitioner on the said pro-note.

This application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by

an order dated 24.11.2023.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the

petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present Civil

Revision Petition.

3. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that the said order of the Trial

Court is not consonance with the Judgement of the learned

Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.6157 of 2018 in the

case of G.V. Rami Reddy Vs. D.Mohan Raju1.

4. The question of whether the age of the ink can be

determine by the aforesaid Forensic Science Laboratory, has

come up before various High Courts of this Country. A

learned Single Judge of this Court after reviewing the

aforesaid Judgments of the Various High Courts in

C.R.P.No.1195 of 2022 had held that it was not technically

possible for the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the

age of ink used on document.

5. In another Judgment of the learned Single Judge

of this Court reported in the case of Chalamalasetty Gandhi

Vs. Badiga Subrahmanyam2 had held that to determine the

age of ink would not be sufficient as the ink could have been

manufactured much earlier and used later.

6. I am in respectfully agreement with the Judgment

of the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.1195 of

2019 (2) ALT 253

2023 (4) Andh LD 444

2023 and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in the

case of Chalamalasetty Gandhi Vs. Badiga Subrahmanyam3.

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. This order would not preclude the petitioner from

making out his case on the question when the pro-note had

been filled in and when the pro-note had been signed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if

any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

09.02.2024 BSM/MJA

2023 (4) Andh LD 444

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3216 of 2023

09.02.2024

BSM