The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.2 of 2025, filed by Velagapudi Kishore Kumar against Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna, challenging the trial court’s refusal to send a disputed promissory note for forensic examination to determine the age of the ink. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, upheld the lower court’s order, emphasizing that there is no reliable scientific methodology available in India to determine the age of ink or signatures on documents.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from O.S.No.1141 of 2019, a suit for recovery of Rs.15,75,400 filed by Boppana Venkata Naga Krishna against Velagapudi Kishore Kumar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had borrowed Rs.12,00,000 on March 20, 2018, and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with 24% compound interest per annum. The defendant purportedly issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000 on March 20, 2019, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the filing of the recovery suit.
The defendant, in his response, denied borrowing any amount or executing the promissory note. He contended that the document was fraudulently created due to family disputes and sought forensic verification of the promissory note to determine the age of the ink and the revenue stamp used.
Legal Issues and Proceedings
During the proceedings, the defendant filed I.A.No.700 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC, seeking to send the promissory note to a forensic laboratory to ascertain the age of the ink. The trial court, however, rejected this plea on November 26, 2024, on the ground that no forensic laboratory in India could determine the absolute age of ink with certainty.
The defendant had previously filed I.A.No.865 of 2022, which was dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the High Court in CRP No.35 of 2023. However, subsequent forensic reports from Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL), Hyderabad, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai confirmed that no scientific method exists to determine the age of ink or stamps, leading to the dismissal of the fresh application.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while rejecting the civil revision petition, made the following key observations:
Scientific Limitations: The reports from TSFSL, Hyderabad, FSL Thiruvananthapuram, and BARC Mumbai stated that determining the absolute age of ink is not possible due to the lack of authenticated scientific methodology.
Judicial Precedents: The court cited multiple judgments, including Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396, which observed that ink aging cannot be definitively determined.
Futility of the Exercise: The court ruled that when an application is based on a method that is scientifically unavailable, allowing such a plea would amount to a deliberate delay in proceedings.
Previous Litigation: The High Court noted that despite being aware of the forensic reports, the defendant filed another application, which was seen as a delaying tactic.
“As from the three science laboratories in India, the document was returned with reports stating that there is no authenticated procedure for ascertaining the age of ink, the application is misconceived, without bona fides, and intended to delay the suit proceedings,” observed Justice Tilhari in his ruling.
