//
archives

forensic science laboratory

This tag is associated with 2 posts

sample voice = If the facts in the present case are examined in the light of the above pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla is already in possession of a CD containing voices or conversation said to be between A-1 and the victim woman; and the investigating officer wanted sample voice of A-1 and the victim to be recorded in court for the purpose of making comparison of voices contained in the CD with the sample voices recorded in open court. This exercise of recording of sample voices of A-1 and the victim in open court is not going to incriminate A-1 on the basis of such sample voice, but only facilitates the investigating officer and the court to identify voice contained in the CD which is already in possession of the investigating officer. By any stretch of imagination, the exercise of recording sample voice of A-1 for the purpose of identifying the male voice already contained in CD which is collected by the investigating officer during investigation, cannot amount to testimonial compulsion which is prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINALREVISION CASE NO.1219 OF 2010 27-07-2010 Y. Ranganadh Goud State rep. By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Mastan Naidu Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor :ORDER: 1. The revision petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.13 r.10 – Genuineness of a deed challenged before civil court – Initiation of criminal proceedings also – In criminal proceeding deed sent for examination of signature and thumb, impression of the person challenging it, to forensic expert – Plaintiffs application calling for forensic report regarding handwriting allowed – But application calling for report regarding thumb impression dismissed – Held: Dismissal of the later application not justified – If bringing on record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same should not be refused – The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at just decision must be encouraged. Appellant and respondents were co-sharers. Allegedly they entered into a deed of partition. Appellant filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the deed. He also lodged an FIR in that regard. In the criminal proceedings, the partition deed was sent for examination of signature and thumb impression of the appellant. In the pending suit, appellant filed an application for calling for the report of forensic report from the court of Judicial Magistrate as regards purported signature and the same was allowed. Thereafter he filed another application for calling for the forensic report regarding the thumb impression. Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the application did not furnish requisite particulars and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC did not empower civil court to direct production of document from the custody of police. An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court’s duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. The court in the said process, however, would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed. [Para 12] [668-D, E] 1.2. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by calling for such documents, the court shall not bring about a situation whereby a criminal proceeding would remain stayed as it is a well settled principle of law that where a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding is pending, the latter shall get primacy. [Para 13] [668-F] 1.4. In a civil suit, a document has to be proved. The report of an expert is also required to be brought on record in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in Order XIII, Rule 8 CPC, the civil court would furthermore be entitled to substitute the original document by a certified copy. Therefore, the original document could have been called for. [Para 14] [669-G] Union of India and Anr. v. The State and Anr. 1961 XLII ITR 753; Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 75, relied on. Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 566 and Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438, referred to. 2.1. In view of the fact that appellants in their application disclosed that a First Information Report was lodged on 1.11.2003 against the defendants. The same was registered as Crime No.699/03; that the original partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Department along with appellant’s admitted signatures by the court of Judicial Magistrate, at the request of the Investigating Officer and that plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert was also filed therein in regard to the thumb impression of the appellants, trial Judge, committed a manifest error in holding that requisite particulars have not been furnished. [Paras 9 and 10] [667-F-G; 668-A-B] 2.2. Trial Judge himself had allowed a similar application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert was concerned. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to on what basis a similar prayer made by the appellant in regard to the opinion of the finger print expert could be held to be not maintainable. [Para 11] [668-C] Case Law Reference: AIR 1955 SC 566 Referred to. Para 13 (2004) 1 SCC 438 Referred to. Para 13 1961 XLII ITR 753 Relied on. Para 14 (2005) 4 SCC 480 Relied on. Para 14 (2006) 1 SCC 75 Relied on. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 5.1.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P.P.D No. 559 of 2005. Vijay Kumar, C. Jayaraj and Malini Poduval for the Appellants. V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026 of 2007) Lakshmi & Anr. … Appellants Versus Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors. … Respondents JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. `Procedural Mechanics’ involving interpretation of Order XIII Rule 10 of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,107 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com