Plaintiff in a cheque suit sought a second forensic examination after an inconclusive report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur; the Sub Judge dismissed the petition and the High Court, holding expert opinion is only corroborative evidence and a second report unnecessary, dismissed the original petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:KER:7572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 187 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
RAMAKRISHNAN
S/O.KOOTHATH APPUKUTTA GUPTHAN, MANNAMPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.P.JAYARAM
RESPONDENT:
UNNIKRISHNAN
S/O.KOOTHATH APPUKUTTA GUPTHAN, MANNAMPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:7572
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
2
“C.R”
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19 th day of July, 2024
This Original Petition, has been fled under Article i 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P7 order from Sub Court, Ottapalam;
ii) Set aside Exhibit P7 order;
iii) Grant such other reliefs found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the impugned order and relevant materials available.
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
3
2024:KER:7572
strength of cheque, alleged to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant disputed the authenticity of the cheque, the same was forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Scientific Assistant (Documents), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur, as per the report dated 20.10.2014 reported as under:
“It has not been possible to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding the authorship of the red enclosed questioned signature stamped and marked Q1 in comparison with the blue enclosed standard signatures similarly stamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S30.”
2024:KER:7572
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
4
[AIR 1982 KERALA 49] , in paragraph No.14, this Court held as under:
“14. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that whether it be under O.26 of the Code or under S.45 of the Evidence Act, there is no prohibition as such against making a second reference to a handwriting expert without setting aside the report of the first; the Court has a discretion in the matter. To say so is not to handover to the alcoholic the key of the distillery and to permit the trial Courts to issue commissions galore, but only to distinguish a matter of practice from a matter of law. The discretion is there, of course, to be used with circumspection.”
“14. Experts are persons who have special or peculiar skill which is acquired by study of scientific work and practical observations. An expert is one who has made the subject upon
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
5
2024:KER:7572
which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice or observation; and he must have special knowledge of the subject (State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors. (2000 (2) KLT SN 15 (C.No.17) SC = (1999) 7 SCC 280). He is a person instructed by experience (Narayana Kekunnaya v. Vishnu Derinjathaya (1961 KLT 960). His opinion must be based on specialized knowledge. There are certain tests to ascertain the reliability of experts. His educational background, readiness to give the details of his techniques and procedures are two of such tests. The lower court had no materials before it to ascertain the qualifications and competence of V.Sukumara Chettiyar. (The report shows that V.Sukumara Chettiyar is a retired Joint Director and Head of Documents Division of the Kerala State Forensic Science Laboratory). It is also not known whether V.Sukumara Chettiyar had any equipment to scientifically examine documents. Before a document is sent to a person for scientific examination the court should at least prima facie satisfy itself about his academic qualifications and competence and that he has a sufÏciently equipped laboratory. This was not done in this case. When an expert is appointed
2024:KER:7572
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
6
to do some scientific work, it is proper that the court issues a commission warrant as provided in O.26 R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. The age of handwriting expert also is relevant because he is required to have a ‘photographic eye’ to recognise similarities and differences in the questioned and the admitted or proved signatures.
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
7
2024:KER:7572
enclosed standard signatures.
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
2024:KER:7572
8
its correctness and it is up to the court to form its own conclusions on the evidence. When direct evidence is forthcoming on the matters spoken to by an expert, the court is not precluded from acting on such direct evidence in preference to the report of an expert.
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
9
2024:KER:7572
itself whether the opinion of an expert is correct or not on a matter in issue.
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
2024:KER:7572
10
to prove the suit document by substantive evidence to get the reliefs.
In such view of the matter, there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned. As such, this petition is liable to fail and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
SK
O.P. (C) No. 187 of 2015
11
2024:KER:7572
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 187/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 279/2010 ON THE FILESOF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
|---|---|
EXT.P2 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 279/2010 ONTHE FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
EXT.P3 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT REPORT DT.20-10-2014 ISSUEDFROM REGIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, THRISSUR. |
EXT.P4 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DT.11-1-15 IN EXT.P3REPORT. |
EXT.P5 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA 149/15, OS 279/10ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
EXT.P6 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN IA 149/15, OS279/2010 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
EXT.P7 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.14-1-15 IN IA 149/15, OS279/2010 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused a second forensic examination of the disputed cheque signature by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, after an inconclusive first report from T
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hydru and another v. Govindankutty NairRelied on¶4
[AIR 1982 KERALA 49] · Who else cites this
Chandrasekharan Nair v. Olympic Credit CorporationRelied on¶5
[2014 (2) KLT 242]
Dayal Singh v. State of UttaranchalRelied on¶7
[AIR 2012 SC 3046 : (2012) 8 SCC 263] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramakrishnan
Unnikrishnan
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court