CASE 1- T. Rajalingam v.

The State of Telangana (IMPO)

CASE 2- Union of India v Jyoti Prakash Mitter

16. There was some correspondence between the Director of the Central Forensic Institute,
Calcutta and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Commandant of the Institute opined that it was "
extremely difficult to solve dating problems in a completely satisfactory manner". He initially
sought instructions whether he was at liberty to deface or mutilate the documents, because the
"test required could not be made without extracting parts of the documents, but later wrote that
the mutilation of documents by the chemical test was not desirable and moreover that by such
application it would not be possible to give an absolute date to the document. Thereafter the
Director reported on a "limited examination" that could be carried out that it was not possible to
give any opinion relating to the age of the ink writing on the almanac", but in his view the
horoscope could not have been written earlier than 1909, because the paper on which it was
written contained bamboo pulp which was not brought into the use by the Titaghur Mills in the
manufacture of paper before 1912. The Director said nothing about the age of the ink in which
the
17. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the
Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949, 1950 and 1959, and requested
the Director to determine the age of the writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in
the almanac by comparison. The Director on April 17, 1965 wrote that
"It was impossible to give any definite opinion by such comparisons particularly when the
comparison writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and not stored under
the same conditions as the documents under examination", and that it "will not be possible for a
document expert, however reputed he might be, anywhere in the world, to give any definite
opinion on the probable date of the horoscope and the ink writing in the margin of the
almanac".

CASE 3- Kishan Lal v Income Tax Officer

Similarly on the first and second pages where "Pramanit" is written, telephone No. 5108 was
mentioned. The report of the Senior Scientific Officer, referred to above, was that it was not
possible to opine as to which of the seal impressions was affixed earlier and that it was also not
possible to determine the absolute, age of the inks used in the writings and signature. 

CASE 4- Smt Saheb Bi Shaikh Jani And Others vs Shaikh Azam Shaikh Mehmood And ...
on 27 February, 2019

12. In Om Prakash (Dead) through his legal representatives Vs. Shanti Devi and others [(2015)5
SCC 601], the Hon'ble Apex Court (3 Judges Bench), concluded that the 30 years period is to be
reckoned backwards, not from the date upon which the deed is filed in Court, but from the date
on which it was tendered in evidence/exhibited, since its genuineness or otherwise becomes the
province of proof for the first time. The document should be produced at the earliest so that it is
not looked upon with suspicion in so far as its authenticity is concerned because even if the
document is purported or is proved to be 30 years old, a person claiming benefit of Section
90 would not axiomatically receive a favourable presumption u/s 90 as this would be subject to
the scheme u/s 68, 69 and 90 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 34, 17 and 47 to 50 of the
Registration Act, 1908.

13. Notwithstanding the above, I find from the impugned order that the Trial Court has agreed
that it would be appropriate to allow the reference of the original document to a handwriting
expert or such an expert with whose assistance, the contention of forgery could be gone into. It is
also observed that the plaintiffs would be entitled to a right of rebuttal to disprove the said
documents. The Trial Court khs/FEB.2019/8931-d took up the issue of availability of a forensic
laboratory to undertake the examination of the age of the ink appearing on the said document. It
then noted that if the plaintiffs had brought on record the existence of any such laboratory, the
aspect of determining the age of the ink could have been gone into. It finally concluded that as
there is no forensic standard method to determine the age of the ink, the application deserves to
be rejected.

14. This Court dealt with a similar situation in the matter of Vijaykumar Gulabchand Baldava
Vs. Gautam Prakash Kulkarni in WP No.10793/2015 decided on 28/11/2018. While dealing with
the said case, an order passed at the Nagpur Bench on 08/02/2018 in the matter of Vijay Achyut
Ashtikar and another Vs. Vinayak s/o Achyut Ashtikar, WP No.6751/2016, was brought to the
notice of this Court. In the said order, the Nagpur Bench referred a particular document to the
Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai for finding out the age of the ink. The judgment
delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Mr.Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs.
Mr.Nuburu Mohan Rao, [2018(6) A.L.D. 751] would also indicate that a similar order was
passed referring the document to the Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai with a further
khs/FEB.2019/8931-d direction to the litigant, seeking such determination of the age of the ink,
to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the said authority.

CASE 5- Vijay v Rekha

5. I find that by taking adequate precaution to ensure that the document in question as laminated
is handled with care, its scientific examination can be permitted in the light of discretion
exercised by the trial Court. The same can be done by following the modality as stated by the
expert and mentioned in the pursis dated 02/08/2017. It is to be noted that after the document is
examined, the opinion of the expert would be available on record. While according to the
defendants it is not possible to determine the age of the ink on the document, according to the
expert sought to be appointed by the plaintiff such determination is possible. I find that the value
of that report as well as the question whether the method adopted by the expert throws light on
the age of the ink on the document are 3-J-WP-6751-16 5/5 matters which can be considered
after the report of the expert is received. The contentions of both the parties in that regard can be
kept open for evaluation by the trial Court in the light of provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10-A(2)
of the Code are concerned.

6. In that view of the matter I do not find any interference is called for as far as the order passed
by the trial Court. The trial Court shall direct examination of the document dated 06/11/1991 by
taking into consideration the contents of pursis dated 02/08/2017. It is made clear that both the
parties would be free to object to the report of the Commissioner and the question whether the
age of the ink on the Will can be determined by such examination would also considered by the
trial Court after the report is received.

CASE6- Sudarshan Kumar versus Manish Manchanda

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4e7e691cb26fc4d9f2f

it has been held that it is not possible to give definite age of ink, as there is no scientific method
of doing so. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held as under:

"5. As per the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is alleged that the
cheques in question have been manipulated later on by filling in the necessary particulars in the
body of the cheques. He has pleaded that the cheques in question should be sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory to determine the age of the ink used to fill in the necessary particulars in the
body of the cheques. But in my opinion, it is not possible for a document expert to give any
definite opinion about eth age of the ink as it is not known in which year the ink used to write the
document was manufactured. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Union
of India Vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1971 SC 1093, elaborately dealt with this issue and laid
down as under:-
"After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the Home
Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949, 1950 and 1959, and requested the
Director to determine the age of the writing of
- 15 -
the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by comparison. The Director on April
17, 1965 wrote that it "was impossible to give any definite opinion by such comparisons
particularly when the comparison writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and
not stored under the .
same conditions as the documents under examination", and that it "will not be possible for a
document expert, however reputed he might be, anywhere in the world, to give any definite
opinion on the probable date of the horoscope and the ink writing in the margin of the almanac"."