Vijaykumar Gulabchand Baldava vs. Gautam Prakash Kulkarni

Facts

The petitioner, Vijaykumar Gulabchand Baldava, is the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 2006. He filed an application (Exhibit 219) before the Trial Court to send a disputed document to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune, for an expert opinion on the age of the ink used. This application was rejected by the Trial Court. Previously, this Court, in Writ Petition No. 10793/2015, had partly allowed a similar application, directing the document to be sent to Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai. However, that laboratory reported it lacked the facility to examine the age of ink. Subsequently, in a related proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court directed a cheque to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune, and a report was received. The petitioner's current application was rejected by the Trial Court, citing a previous rejection of a similar application (Exhibit 216).

Held

The Court held that once it had previously determined in Writ Petition No. 10793/2015 that the document required analysis to ascertain the age of the ink, it was imperative that the document be sent to an expert. The Court noted that in a dispute between the same parties concerning a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court had directed the cheque to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune, and a report had been received. Therefore, the Court found no reason or justification to reject the petitioner's application to send the document in the present case to the same laboratory. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable. The Court allowed the petition and directed that Exhibit 219 be allowed, with the disputed document to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune. The Trial Court was instructed to direct the laboratory to expedite the analysis and submit a report within a specified time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application (Exhibit 219) to send the disputed document to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune, for determining the age of the ink, despite this Court's previous directions and the availability of a similar facility in a related case. The petitioner argued that this Court's prior order in Writ Petition No. 10793/2015 necessitated sending the document for analysis to ascertain the ink's age. He highlighted that the initial attempt to send the document to BABC, Mumbai, failed due to postal issues and later due to the lab's lack of facility. He contended that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kharadi, Pune, offers the required service at a significantly lower cost (Rs. 5,000/- plus GST) compared to another lab suggested by the Trial Court (Rs. 84,000/- plus GST). He sought to set aside the impugned order. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the suit has been pending since 2006 and the petitioner is employing dilatory tactics to delay its decision.