Telangana High Court

Bonthala Ravi vs The State Of Telangana on 3 October, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.10926 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') to quash

the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in

STC.NI.No.19 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Bellampalli.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed

Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in STC.NI.No.19 of 2021 before the trial

Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the

cheque bearing No.000011 dated 01.07.2021 to expert at

Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad for

comparison and analysis of age of ink over the signature, date

and name of payee on the said cheque. The trial Court, after

hearing both sides, vide order dated 09.09.2024, dismissed the

petition on the ground that the age of the ink cannot be

determined by any scientific method. Aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

3. Heard Sri G. Eashwaraiah, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

SKS,J

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1-State and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

respondent No.2 did not obtain the subject cheque from the

father of the petitioner and he received the subject cheque in

the year 2017 during a loan transaction, after demise of his

father, respondent No.2 filled the date as 01.07.2021. He

further submitted that an opportunity is given to the petitioner

to prove his defence. Even if the opportunity is given to the

petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2,

therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated

09.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in STC.NI.No.19

of 2021.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Civil

Revision Petition No.2646 of 2019, wherein it is held as follows:

"Therefore, as the trial Court has already come to a conclusion in its earlier order passed in I.A.No.480 of 2017 that as requested by the defendant that the document i.e., Ex.A-1 promissory note is to be sent to the expert for examination to ascertain the age of the ink, the second application filed by him to send the said Ex.A-1 promissory note to another lab i.e., the

SKS,J

Truth Labs and Truth Finders, ought not to have been rejected. Ultimately, the object of sending the said document for examination to ascertain the age of ink is to appreciate the rival contentions of both the parties in the suit and to find out whether Ex.A-1 promissory note is genuine or not. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable."

6. Learned counsel further the petitioner further relied upon

the Judgment of the Madras High Court in

A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran 1, wherein in

paragraph No.32, it is held as follows:

"32. In view of the above said study and discussion, I am fortified in my view that the disputed document has to be referred to the expert for ascertaining the age of the ink an practical hardships, if any, sustained by the expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall thereafter act according to the settled principles and procedures, in affording appropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence. Hence, interference with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable, which is set aside. The revision deserves to be allowed."

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the claim of the

2011 CRI.L.J.4152

SKS,J

petitioner to find out the age of the ink in the signature, date

and name of payee is not covered by Section 45 of the Indian

Evidence Act. It is meant only for comparison of the hand

writings and signatures. The relief under request of the

petitioner is not required for the Court to decide the matter in

issue. Hence, the claim for ascertaining the age of the ink is

meaningless. The petitioner is the competent person to say

about the signature, date and name mentioned in the cheque

and hence, the expert opinion is not essential. Therefore, the

trial Court has rightly passed the order, there is no illegality in

the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao v. Kesana Bala

Krishna 2, wherein in paragraph No.5, it is held as follows:

"5. The application, no doubt, is filed under Section 45 of the Act, and it is not uncommon that such applications are filed in the suits for recovery of money on the strength of promissory notes. However, the prayer in the I.A. is somewhat peculiar. Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be

2014 (1) ALD 521

SKS,J

determined. Several complications arise in this regard. The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature. In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. If there was a gap of 10 years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and the date on which, the signature was put or document was written, the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and dismissed the application."

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it

appears that the trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024

on the ground that the age of the ink cannot be determined by

any scientific method. It is specifically contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are necessary

facilities in the forensic laboratories along with the experts on

the said subject and the age of the ink can be ascertained in the

labs. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kambala

Nageswara Rao (supra), it is observed that the expert opinion

on ink age cannot be of any help in determining the date of its

writing as the writing could be made at one time and the ink