Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 151, Order XXVI Rule 10-A
Constitution of India — Article 227
A. Forensic Examination — Age of Ink — Scientific Impossibility
Courts shall not permit repeated or futile forensic references when three premier forensic institutions have categorically opined that no scientific method exists to determine the absolute age of ink, writing or revenue stamp.
(Paras 11–14, 17–19, 23–25)
B. Successive Applications — Abuse of Process
Repeated applications seeking the same forensic relief after earlier attempts failed and were exhausted constitute lack of bona fides and an attempt to protract trial.
(Paras 12–14, 23–24)
C. Effect of Earlier CRP Order
An earlier order directing forensic examination does not compel the court to continue futile exercises when subsequent scientific reports demonstrate impossibility of such examination.
(Paras 10–14)
D. Expert Opinion — Discretion of Court
Expert evidence is not to be ordered mechanically.
When the purpose sought is incapable of scientific determination, the court must refuse the request.
(Paras 12–14, 23–25)
E. Article 227 — Limited Interference
Supervisory jurisdiction shall not be exercised to interfere with a reasoned discretionary order of trial court unless grave illegality or perversity is shown.
(Paras 22, 25–26)
FACTS
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Suit filed for recovery on promissory note |
| 2022 | Defendant filed I.A. 865/2022 for forensic test — dismissed, later allowed in CRP 35/2023 |
| 2023–2024 | Document sent to TSFSL, FSL Thiruvananthapuram & BARC Mumbai — all returned: no science to determine age of ink |
| 2024 | Defendant filed fresh I.A. 700/2024 for same relief |
| 26-11-2024 | Trial Court dismissed I.A. 700/2024 |
| 05-03-2025 | High Court dismissed CRP No.2/2025 |
ISSUES
Whether court should order further forensic examination for determining age of ink when scientific impossibility is established?
Whether successive applications seeking same relief amount to abuse of process?
Scope of interference under Article 227?
ANALYSIS OF LAW
No Scientific Basis — No Further Reference
After reports from TSFSL, FSL Thiruvananthapuram and BARC Mumbai declaring impossibility, any further attempt is futile and wasteful.
(Paras 11–14)
Abuse of Judicial Process
Fresh application filed with full knowledge of earlier reports was held mala fide and intended only to delay trial.
(Paras 12–14, 23–24)
Binding Precedents
Court relied on:
Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396
Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane (Bom HC, 2023)
Polana Jawaharlal Nehru (Hyd HC)
VeHneni Veeraiah (AP HC, 2024)
All confirming no reliable science exists for fixing absolute age of ink.
(Paras 15–23)
Article 227 Restraint
High Court reaffirmed that supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate and shall not disturb a reasoned discretionary order.
(Paras 22, 25–26)
RATIO DECIDENDI
When competent forensic institutions have conclusively reported that no scientific method exists to determine the absolute age of ink, courts must refuse repeated forensic references; successive applications seeking such relief constitute abuse of process, and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not interfere with a reasoned trial court order refusing such futile exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment