Allowed

K.Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2009Crl.MC/689/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking expert forensic analysis of documents to verify handwriting and ink age. The Court held that reliance on mere signature comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act is hazardous in cases of total denial of appointment, and allowed the request to avoid miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition, directing that the documents be sent for expert forensic opinion on handwriting and ink age wi

K.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 689 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------------------SC.682/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC II) THALASSERY CRIME NO.400/2008 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------

¶8

K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.VASU P., KADAYAPRATH HOUSE, ANDOOR AMSOM, KOLMOTTA DESOM, P.O.NANISSERY, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶10

----------------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.400 OF 2008 OF THE MATTANNUR POLICE STATION).

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RM.P.A.SALIM

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 689 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2009.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed to quash the order dated 12.2.2009 in CrL.M.P. 488/09 and S.C.682/08. The petition was filed

¶18

by the 12^th accused in the case to send documents for comparison of handwriting and also to send one document to verify the age of the ink used in printing the order. Or in other words the petitioner wanted Ext.P55 collection register to be send for comparison of handwriting and Ext.P53 appointment order dated 4.8.05 for chemical analysis to the forensic laboratory to verify the age of the ink used in printing the order and the age of the ink. The Sessions Court did not find in favour of the petitioner and disallowed both the prayers.

¶19

So far as Ext.P55 is concerned the Court was of the opinion that it is a bounden duty of the Court to scrutinize each and every document in accordance with law as to how far it relates to the nexus with the person.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 689 OF 2009

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

According to the Court intervention of an extraneous agency is not necessary so far as it relates to Ext.P55 is concerned.

¶23

In this context it is pertinent to understand the defence raised in this case by the 12^th accused while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

The 12^th accused is roped into the case as a Manager of the resort where the alleged offences are committed. The specific contention of the 12^th accused is to the effect that he has never been the Manager and he has nothing to do with the resort and he is unnecessarily being prosecuted. But in order to establish the prosecution case the prosecutor had examined PW30 in order to bring out in evidence that some of the entries made in Ext.P53 collection register is in the handwriting of the 12^th accused and therefore the contention that he is the Manager stands established.

¶25

Ext.P53 is an order of appointment alleged to be issued to the 12^th accused in the year 2005 whereas the 12^th accused would contend that he was never been appointed. His suggestion is that it is a fabricated document after the initiation of the prosecution to help somebody and put him

¶26

CRL.M.C. 689 OF 2009

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

into hardship. It is for that reason he wanted the age of ink that is being used in Ext.P53. So I feel the request made by the petitioner requires real consideration for the reason that it will cut at the root of the case either way and therefore it is desirable to have these things done by scientific experts. It is true that S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the Court to have a comparison of signature by itself but it is to be held that it is a most hazardous method that can be resorted to by a Court of law and decisions are to the effect that a decision cannot be arrived at by a mere comparison of signature by the Court but it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, if it is available. So far as the present case is concerned there is a total denial of appointment much less making of any entry in Ext.P55 register. Unless the request is allowed certainly it will result in miscarriage of justice and I am conscious of the fact that there is a direction given by this Court to dispose of the matter positively on or before 28.2.2009. Directions are given by the Courts for achieving the purpose namely a quick disposal but not a disposal by depriving the party from letting in evidence which he is under law entitled to. From the circumstances available

¶29

CRL.M.C. 689 OF 2009 -:4:-

¶30

I hold that the prayer of the petitioner herein to send he matter for expert opinion so far as it relates to Ext.P53 and P55 are concerned is to be granted and I do so. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and allow CMP 488/09. The learned Sessions Judge can send a report for extension of time for disposing of the case on the basis of this order passed by me. At the same time when the matters are send for expert's opinion the matter be specially be addressed intimating about the urgency of the matter and the requirement to give precedence for the purpose of conducting a scientific test and for an early return of the particulars required by the Court. With this observation the CRL.M.C. is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.

¶31

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶32

ul/- Hand over.

K.Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs State

Shajahan Vs State

Wilfer Raj Vs the State of Kerala

Jose Vs John

Vengadan Abdul Salam Vs Kalappattil Mohammed Ali

Vasudevan Pillai Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Ekm.& Another