{"id":42639,"date":"2010-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-01-01T14:01:49","modified_gmt":"2018-01-01T08:31:49","slug":"a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/12\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU\n\nCrl. R.C.(MD) No.145 of 2010\n\t\t\t\t\nA. Sivagnana Pandian\t\t     .. Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\nM. Ravichandran \t\t     .. Respondent\n\n\tRevision under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the\ndismissal order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6161 of 2009 in C.C.No.44\nof 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.A.V. Arun\n^For Respondent ... Mr.R. Venkateswaran\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner is accused in C.C.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial
\nMagistrate, Paramakudi.  The case originated on the private complaint lodged by
\nthe respondent\/complainant on the strength of a cheque delivered to him by this
\npetitioner.  When the case was in the part-heard stage, the petitioner filed an
\napplication under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to
\nthe Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. In the petition filed by him, it is stated that the respondent has
\nfalsely claimed that for getting the loan, the petitioner has delivered cheque
\nfor Rs.9,00,000\/-, that in the cheque the petitioner laid his signature alone
\nintending to get a loan of Rs.1,00,000\/- only from the respondent and reposing
\nconfidence upon the respondent, he handed over the cheque to him.  At the time
\nof delivering the cheque, the petitioner’s signature alone was there and other
\nparticulars were not filled up.  So in order to institute a false case, the
\ncontents were filled in the cheque afterwards.  Hence, the age of the ink
\nutilised for signature by the petitioner has to be ascertained by the forensic
\nexpert.  Then only, the factual back ground would come to light and hence the
\ncheque may be referred to forensic science expert.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In the counter filed by the respondent it is stated that the claim of
\nthe petitioner to find out the age of the ink in the signature is not covered by
\nSection 45 of the Evidence Act.  It is meant  only for comparison of the hand
\nwritings and signatures. The relief under the request of the accused is not
\nrequired for the Court to decide the matter in issue.  Without any ambiguity the
\npetitioner admitted his signature in the cheque.  Hence the claim for
\nascertaining the age is meaningless.  The petitioner is the competent person to
\nsay about his signatures and hence the expert opinion is not essential.  The
\npetitioner has protracted the case for 7 years. The petition is filed purely
\nwith dishonesty, evil intention and with speculation. The only issue for
\nconsideration is whether the signature found in the cheque belongs to the
\naccused or not.  Hence the petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. After hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed
\nthe application by observing that in view of the admission by the petitioner
\nthat he signed  the cheque, even if he disputes  the other contents of the
\ncheque, the presumption has to be drawn and that only with a view to
\nprocrastinate the proceedings, the petition has been filed.  Aggrieved against
\nthe said order, the petitioner is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. It is bottom-line contention of the petitioner’s counsel Mr.A.V. Arun,
\nthat the petitioner conveyed the cheque to the respondent with his signature
\nalone with an intention to get loan of Rs.1,00,000\/- only and the cheque was
\nlater filled up as if he was liable to pay Rs.9 lakhs and that the age of the
\nink in the signature and other contents have to be brought to light,  which
\nwould throw light upon the defence and the same would support his contention.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Repelling the above said contention, by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent Mr.R. Venkateswaran argued that there is no scientific method in
\nvogue to ascertain the age of the ink and even if the document is referred for
\nascertaining the age of the ink, it would be a futile exercise, since the expert
\non the subject has represented before this Court in another case that it is not
\npossible to ascertain the age of the ink and the documents which were referred
\nfor this purpose to the forensic laboratory were returned  with report that  it
\nis not possible to detect the age of the ink.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention
\nplaced reliance upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
\n(2008) 5 SCC 633 [T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Mudaliar<\/a>] in which it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. When a contention has been raised that the complainant has misused the
\ncheque, even in a case where a presumption can be raised under Section 118 (a)
\nor 139 of the said Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for
\nadducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on the
\naccused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In this decision, the Supreme Court  has extracted Section 20 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act and made an observation that the proviso to Section
\n20 has a rider, namely, no person other than a holder in due course shall
\nrecover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the
\namount intended by him to be paid therein.  In the present case, in the petition
\nit has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner had intention to get a
\nloan of Rs.1,00,000\/- alone and as such a blank cheque with signature was handed
\nover to the respondent  which was filled up for Rs.9,00,000\/-. Though a
\npresumption could be drawn under the Act, it is a rebuttable presumption and as
\nper the mandate in the above said decision, the accused has to be accorded ample
\nopportunity to rebut the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In the above noted decision, earlier decision of the Supreme Court in
\n(2007) 2 SCC 258 = (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 577 [Kalyani Baskar v. M.S.Sampoornam<\/a>] has
\nbeen referred to, which passage is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in
\nKalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.)<\/a> [(2007) 2 SCC 258] (in which one
\nof us, L.S. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held : “12. Section 243(2)
\nis clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC in respect of an
\noffence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in
\nthe interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same
\nto be compared by a handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature or
\nwriting with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his
\nown conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to
\nrebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which
\nthe respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the
\nappellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate
\nhaving declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the
\nhandwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it.
\nThe appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to
\npresent her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. “Fair
\ntrial” includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her
\ninnocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right.
\nDenial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of
\nprocedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the
\ncourts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The above said decision indicates the duty cast upon the Court and
\ndictates the Court to afford opportunity to the accused for having a fair trial
\nbefore it.  It is the quintessence of the decision that to prove the innocence
\nof the accused, fair trial has to be ensured. In Kalyani Baskar’s case, the Apex
\nCourt has stressed that if the disputed document would furnish the accused a
\ngood material to rebut the presumption, he should not be deprived of that
\nopportunity.  It is applicable to the objection to be raised by him in the
\nmatter of the age of the ink too, which is a good material available in the
\ndocument. Both the decisions are squarely applicable to this case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of
\nmine reported  in CDJ 2009 MHC 2077=2009 Indlaw Mad 1077 = AIR 2009 Mad.166
\n[V.P. Sankaran v. R. Uthirakumar<\/a>] wherein I have referred and followed the
\ndecisions in T.Nagappa’s case and Kalyani Baskar’s case.  I have also referred
\nto a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1994 AP 90 [Uppu Jhansi
\nLakshmi Bai v. J.Venkateswara Rao] wherein the learned Judge has held that the
\nopinion of the hand writing expert is not totally irrelevant factor for
\nadjudication of the dispute and his opinion can be sought for determining the
\nage of disputed handwriting.  In this decision, a judgment of the Honourable
\nSupreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 529 [Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar
\nBanerjee<\/a>] has been referred.  The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(23). Finally we may point out that the expert admitted in his evidence
\nthat it was only by a chemical test that it could be definitely stated whether a
\nparticular writing was of a particular year or period. He also admitted that he
\napplied no chemical tests in this case. So his opinion cannot on his own showing
\nhave that value which it might have had if he had applied a chemical test.
\nBesides we may add that Osborn on “Questioned Documents” at page 464 says even
\nwith respect to chemical tests that “the chemical tests to determine the age
\nalso, as a rule are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no reliable data
\nupon which a definite opinion can be based. In these circumstances, the mere
\nopinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the attesting
\nwitnesses in a case like this where there are no suspicious circumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t12(a). In the case before the Supreme Court, the expert did not perform
\nany chemical test.  Hence the Supreme Court has observed as above.  Even in the
\nsaid authority “Questioned Document” by Albert S. Osborn, the other portions
\nwere looked into and referred to by the leaned Judge of Andhra Pradesh in his
\ndecision above.  The extraction of relevant excerpts of the authority in the
\ndecision in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai’s case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“There are those also who pretend to say how old a writing is by merely
\nexamining it with a hand magnifier or a microscope. This always is an exhibition
\neither of ignorance or of dishonest presumption. The chemical tests to determine
\nage also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no reliable
\ndata upon which a definite opinion can be based as can easily be demonstrated by
\nfair tests on documents of known age.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned author also expressed the view that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“………By recording the color as first seen, any observer with good
\neyesight can on second view answer the question whether an ink is still
\nundergoing a change in color. This kind of an ink examination often furnishes
\nconclusive evidence that a document is not as old as it purports to be.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t………………………..\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt is important to know that the color of the ink on a suspected
\ndocument, if it is promptly examined, may thus be the means of showing that the
\ndocument is not genuine. If a writing of this kind purports to have been written
\nlong before and it can be shown that the ink has not yet reached its final depth
\nof color, and it actually goes through those changes that are characteristic of
\nink during the first months or year of its history, it is only necessary to
\nprove this fact to invalidate the document.”\n<\/p>\n
The author Albert S. Osborn in other part of his book has opined that by
\nadopting certain experiments, the age of the ink could be established.\n<\/p>\n
\t12(b) In Shashi Kumar Banarjee’s case (supra), the expert had not offered
\nany opinion as to the age of the ink. He had admitted in his evidence that it
\nwas only by a chemical test that it could be definitely stated whether a
\nparticular writing was of a particular year or period.  He also admitted that he
\ndid not apply any chemical test in that case.  So, the Supreme Court reached a
\nconclusion in the above said circumstances that mere opinion of the expert
\ncannot over ride the positive evidence of attesting witnesses in a case like
\nthis where there are no suspicious circumstances.  It is to be noticed here that
\nin the said case, the handwriting expert did not say that no test was available
\nto ascertain the age of the ink.  He has categorically, indubitably and
\npositively stated that the dispute as to the age of the ink could be definitely
\nresolved by a chemical test.  This position prevailed even earlier to 1964.  As
\nobserved by the Honourable Supreme Court, the opinion of the expert has to be
\nsubjected to scrutiny of the Court and that mere opinion of the expert cannot
\noverride the positive evidence of attesting witnesses. When positive evidence
\nemerge from the materials in a case, then the opinion of expert cannot prevail.\n<\/p>\n
\t 13. On a later occasion, this Court in a judgment in 2010 (1) CTC 424 [R.
\nJagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy and<\/a> another], has  opined that sending the documents
\nfor opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents should not be
\nresorted to hereinafter by the Courts unless, in future, due to scientific
\nadvancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the writings.  The
\nlearned Judge has sought for aid of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor of
\nthis Court to gain the view of the responsible officials in the Forensic Science
\nDepartment, Chennai, on this issue.  Accordingly, before the learned Judge, one
\nMr.A.R. Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science
\nDepartment appeared. The learned Judge quizzed him as to the present practice in
\nthe Forensic Science Department for settling the issue.  The following is the
\ntext in this context as regards the statement made by the above said Assistant
\nDirector before the learned Judge:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“7.\t…\t…\tAccording to him, he is the Head of the document
\ndivision of the department. On a query made by this Court regarding the above
\nposition, he would explain to this Court that there is no scientific method
\navailable anywhere in this State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science
\nDepartment, to scientifically assess the age of any writing and to offer
\nopinion. However, he would submit that there is one institution known as Nutron
\nActivation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the
\napproximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It
\nis a Central Government organisation. According to him, even such opinion cannot
\nbe exact. He would further submit that since it is a Central Government
\nOrganisation and confined only to atomic research, the documents relating to
\nprosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent to that institution also for
\nthe purpose of opinion. He would further submit that if a document is sent for
\ncomparison, with the available scientific knowledge, opinion to the extent as to
\nwhether the same could have been made by an individual, by comparing his
\nadmitted handwritings or signatures, alone could be made. He would further
\nsubmit that if there are writings with two different inks in the same document,
\nthat can alone be found out. But he would be sure enough to say that the age of
\nthe writings cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion.”\n<\/p>\n
The Assistant Director has also informed the Court that already many such
\ndocuments, which were sent to them by various Courts in the State for such
\nopinion, have been returned by them with the report that no such opinion could
\nbe offered.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Earlier decisions of this Court show that there had been directions
\nfor ascertaining the age of the ink and they have been performed by the experts.
\nFollowing is a classical instance as seen from a judgment of this Court in 2004
\nSTPL (LE-Crim) 24910 MAD [Amaravathi Chits Investments v. T.M. Vaidyanathan].
\nThe observations in the said judgment are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6.\t…\t…\t…\tIn this regard, learned counsel also submitted
\nthat the accused filed Criminal M.P. No.2077 of 1995 to send the cheque Ex.A.1
\n(Cheque No.991836) to the Forensic Department for obtaining the expert’s opinion
\nand the Scientific Assistant D.W.1. also, in support of the case of the accused,
\nhas stated in the report Ex.D.3 that the person, who has written S34, has not
\nwritten S1 and that in the date of cheque, the number ‘1’ has been inserted with
\ndifferent ink and Q1 and Q2 have been written in ink whereas Q3 to Q5, signature
\nand writing, are all done by using ball point pen.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. \t…\t…\t….\tThe hand writing expert D.W.1 has filed report
\nEx.D.3 and also stated in his evidence that in the cheque Ex.P.1, the writings
\nQ1 and Q2 were made by using ink whereas Q3 to Q5 were made by using ball point
\npen and in the writing marked as Q1, there is a decolourisation of the figures
\n1993 and the figure ‘I’ in the month 25-12-1993 marked as Q1, has been inserted
\nwith different ink.  Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
\naccused and as rightly pointed out by the Metropolitan Magistrate, there have
\nbeen material alteration in the date of cheque by adding ‘1’ before ‘2’ in the
\nmonth to make it appear that the cheque was issued on 25.12.1993 so as to bring
\nthe cheque within the validity period for the purpose of limitation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The above mentioned decision brings to light that the questioned
\ndocuments as regards the difference in ink were referred to the Forensic Science
\nLaboratory in this State which were subjected to ink examination and the expert
\nwho performed the test deposed before the Court and stated about the tests
\nundertaken by him.  Hence, the statement by the Assistant Director of Document
\nDivision before this Court that no scientific method is available anywhere in
\nthis State, particularly in the Forensic Sciences Department to scientifically
\nassess the age of any writing and offer opinion, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2010 STPL (LE-Crim)
\n33581 KAR [Ishwar V. Suresh] while dealing with the identical issue in the case
\nof dishonour of cheque has followed the decisions in T.Nagappa’s case and
\nKalyani Baskar’s case of the Apex Court and directed for determination of
\ndifference in ink in the cheque and promissory note.  In the said decision, it
\nwas the case of the accused that he had issued a blank cheque and bond paper to
\ncomplainant which have been mis-used by entering a huge amount. The attestor
\nadmitted that the difference in ink with reference to contents of the documents.
\nThe trial Court and the Revisional Court had rejected the request of the
\naccused.  The Karnataka High Court termed the rejection of application of
\naccused for referring the cheque and bond paper for examination by an expert
\nonly on the ground that he admits his signature in cheque, as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. As to the view expressed by the Assistant Director, the Court has to
\nsee whether the science and technology on this subject has developed and
\npresently whether it is impossible for the department concerned, to ascertain
\nthe age of the ink with the available experiments in practice as done by the
\nother Countries and other States in this country, particularly on the prior
\noccurrences, when age of the ink was ascertained by the Forensic Sciences
\nDepartment in this State. When the accused is legally entitled to rebut the
\npresumption contained in the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there
\nis no other option for the Court except to provide opportunity to him to rebut
\nthe same so as to make certain the fair trial, as held by the Apex Court, when
\nanalytical, meticulous and regulated means are available.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The  phraseology,  “fair trial”   has   been defined  in
\nP. Ramanatha Iyer’s  “Advanced Law Lexicon”  2005 edition [page 1766] as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“A trial which is fair and proper in contemplation of law, viz, that which
\nthe law secures to the party (St. Paul, etc. R.Co.,v. Cardner, 18  Am Rep 334)”\n<\/p>\n
\t” ‘Fair trial’ means  a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against
\nthe accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried, is eliminated.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“The failure to hear material witness is certainly denial of  ‘fair trial’
\nZahira Habibulla H. Sheikh  v. State of Gujarat,<\/a> (2004) 4 SCC 158, 184  para
\n36″\n<\/p>\n
\t 19. This Court has waded through various authorities specifically on this
\nsubject and found out that the procedures of investigation and demonstrations
\nare very much at hand for ascertaining the age of the ink, which should have
\nbeen adopted by the experts in our country contained in upto date treatise.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.(a) Nature of examination of ink of various categories and different
\nexperiments performed by the renowned chemists and the reagents to be utilised
\nfor such experiments have been graphically narrated in the latest edition in
\nBhuvan’s “Examination of Disputed Documents” [2010 edition]. The excerpts in the
\nsaid authority in pages  214, 222, 223, 225 and 226 are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. Age of Ink.-\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\t…\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\t…\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) \tDiffusion pictures.- Inks often contain sulphate or chloride ions
\nfrom the acids added to it.  They diffuse into the paper with passage of time.
\nIf the paper is treated with lead acetate or silver nitrate, suphate or chloride
\nions precipitate out as lead sulphate and silver chloride and give diffusion
\npictures. The age of the writing is directly related to the extent of diffusion,
\nindicated by the diffusion pictures.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. Examination of Inks :- The examination of inks is one of the most
\ndifficult and yet important tasks in the examination of the documents.  The
\nvariety of inks is very large.  The amount of ink available for examination is
\nextremely small.  An ounce (28 grammes) of dry ink gives six miles unblotted ink
\nline.  The examiner has to content himself with about one millimetre of the ink
\nline which may be blotted.  The analysis of ink is, therefore, undertaken, only
\nwhen it is vital, by experienced workers.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe evaluation of inks on questioned documents solves many problems:\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Is the whole document written in the same ink?\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) What is the age of the writing?\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) Has the ink come from the given inkpot?\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) Can the faded ink be restored?\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) Can the erased writing be read?\n<\/p>\n
\t(6) Are the additions, alternations, substitutions and cancellations  with
\nthe same ink?\n<\/p>\n
\t(7) Can the obliterated writings be made legible?\n<\/p>\n
\tTo determine whether two documents were written with the same type of ink,
\nvarious physical and chemical methods are available.  Thinlayer chromatography
\nis particularly suitable for ink comparisons.  In the dye inks, the separation
\npattern of the competent dyes is distinctly different for inks having different
\ndye compositions, and thus provides many points of comparison between a known
\nand a questioned ink.\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Comparative Table of Robertson and Hofmann – For the examination of
\ninks for legal purposes and especially to determine their nature and the
\ndifference between them, Robertson and Hofmann, the chemists, have prepared a
\nvery useful comparative table.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis table will not only facilitate the task of the professional chemist
\nbut will enable the Investigating Officer in country districts to undertake, in
\nurgent cases, the chemical examination of a document suspected by the meidical
\njurisprudent or pharmacist.  But we repeat that such investigation irreparably
\ndestroys a portion of the document.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe process is carried out by filling several quill pens with the reagents
\nindicated, making strokes across the letters and numbers to be examined, and
\nobserving the changes of colour produced where the ink and the reagent meet.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe chief reagents given by the authors names are:\n<\/p>\n
1.Solution of 3 per cent of oxalic acid in water.\n<\/p>\n
2.Do. of 10″ of citric acid in water\n<\/p>\n
3.Do. of 2″ of chloride of potassium in water\n<\/p>\n
4.Solution of one part of proto-chloride of tin with one part of hydrochloric
\nacidin 10 parts of water\n<\/p>\n
5.Solution of 15 per cent of sulphuric acid.\n<\/p>\n
6.Do.of 10″ of hydrochloric acid\n<\/p>\n
7.Do. of 20″ of nitric acid\n<\/p>\n
8.Solution of anhydrous sulphuric acid in water\n<\/p>\n
9.Solution of 4 per cent chloride of gold in water\n<\/p>\n
10.Do. of one part of ferrocyanide of potassium with one part of hydrochloric
\nacid in 10 parts of water.\n<\/p>\n
11.Solution of one part of thiosulphate of sodium with one part of ammonia  and
\n10 parts of water.\n<\/p>\n
12.Solution of 4 per cent of sodium hydrate in water.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Methods of Examination of inks:- The method commonly used for studies
\nof inks are:\n<\/p>\n
(1)Visual Examination:- Visual examination must be done with light falling at
\nvarious angles and in transmitted light.  The colour and shade variations must
\nbe carefully noted, which reveals apparent discrepancies and erasures.
\n(2)Chemical analysis:- Generally, inks are acidic, alkaline or neutral and have
\npower of resistance against chemical reactions from oxidizing or reducing
\nagents.  So, the chemical analyst must note the action and time of reaction. In
\ncontext of modern development the chemicals used for the tests are:
\n(1) Chlorine Water
\n(2) Bromine Water
\n(3) Stannouschloride Solution
\n(4) Potassium Permaganate Solution
\n(5) Sodium Hydroxide Solution<\/p>\n
(3)Magnifiers:- The magnifiers and stereomicroscope are the two accessories,
\nwhich are invaluable in examination of disputed documents.
\n(4)Filters:- Different colours filters are used for detecting distinguish ink
\nshades and evaluation of faded writings.  Obscured writings obtained by
\nobliteration or by highly coloured surfaces are also detected by help of
\ndifferent colours filters.  A computer with good quality scanner has also colour
\nfiltering system, which will gives better result than filters of different
\ncolours.\n<\/p>\n
(5)Invisible rays:- X-rays, ultraviolet rays and infrared rays are used for
\nanalysing variations in the inks of disputed document.  For above studies, a
\nVideo Spectral Comparator (VSC) is useful<\/p>\n
        The Video Spectral Comparator equipment have recently been developed,
\nwhich facilitates scanning a document under different wavelengths, in the
\nUltraviolet, and Infrared range to detect alterations, additions, erasures and
\nobliterations. It is also found useful for comparison of writing by displaying
\nany part of the writing side by side, above, below or superimposing the
\nsignature for comparison one over the other. Besides the above equipment, Laser
\nsource is also useful for comparing ink writings to detect alterations and
\nadditions.\n<\/p>\n
(6)Spectrographic analysis:- Spectrography especially with laser microscope are
\nuseful to give nature and quality of ink used in writing the document.  For this
\npurpose, suspension of metals in ink of small quantity are helpful.
\n(7)Spectrophotometry:- The dyestuffs used in inks can be identified with help of
\nspectrophotometry. The chemical nature of ink can be determined by
\nchromatography.\n<\/p>\n
(8)Chromatographic analysis:- Different types of dyestuffs used for
\nmanufacturing of inks can be identified by means of Thin layer Chromatography
\n(TLC). The use TLC separates out the dyestuffs constituents and proved handy for
\nink analysis of questioned documents. This method is most frequently used for
\nanalysis of inks.\n<\/p>\n
(9)Electrophoresis:- The solution of inks are subjected to electrical field
\ncreated by supply of electricity.  The dyestuffs constituents of inks separates
\nin band and make it possible to identified different dyestuffs used in
\nmanufacturing of inks.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20.(b) The author has reflected above opinions on the strength of the
\nfollowing books of various authors:\n<\/p>\n
\t1. Dr.B.R. Sharma, Forensic Science in Criminial Investigation & Trials,
\nFourth Edition with Supplement.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. B.S. Nabar, Forensic Science in Crime Investigation, Reprint
\nEdition,2008\n<\/p>\n
\t3. John Adam & J. Collyer Adam, Criminal Investigation, Third Edition.\n<\/p>\n
\t20(c) The author has detailed in the above book that  the following are
\nthe often used ink categories:\n<\/p>\n
(i)Iron Tannate inks: Iron gallotannate ink is a mixture of tannic acid and
\ngallic acid extracted from wood and when mixed with ferrous salts, gives a
\ncolourless liquid, which on drying gives black colour.  It is, therefore, mixed
\nwith suitable dye to give colour to the ink.  The common blue-black ink used in
\nfountain pens belongs to this class.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Dyestuff inks : Now-a-days, the most popular ink is dyestuff inks.  It is
\nmanufactured from number of dyes.  The most particularly used dye is nigrosine
\ndye.  It is available in many colours and shades.  It is not permanent ink as it
\nwas washable and fades with passage of time.  However, the fading of ink depends
\nupon the individual dye of which it is manufactured.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.(d) The above said authority amply amplifies that even though the
\nassignment of ascertaining the age of the ink is tough task,  yet, proved
\nexperiments are available for rendering resolution on the issue.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In the book Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials by
\nB.R. Sharma  [1999 edition], interalia, the following suggestions have been made
\nto bring about such experiments in page No.402:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The examination of ink is one of the most difficult and yet important
\ntasks in the examination of documents.  The variety of inks is very large.  The
\namount of ink available for examination is extremely small.  An ounce (28
\ngrammes) of dry ink gives six miles unblotted ink line.  The examiner has to
\ncontent himself with about one millimetre of the ink line which may be blotted.
\nThe analysis of ink is, therefore, undertaken, only when it is vital, by
\nexperienced workers.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.(a) The writings made by a Ball point pen can also be subjected to
\nscrutiny for this purpose.  It is available in the authority “Suspect Documents
\ntheir scientific examination”by Wilson R. Harrison [1996 edition – first Indian
\nreprint]  in page 217, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The age of a ball-point writing may be estimated more accurately as the
\nresult of chemical tests on the ink.  The first successful inks developed for
\nuse with the Biro pen were all based on olein. Whilst such inks have been
\nsuperseded by improved products in the better pens, they are still being used in
\nthe cheaper pens.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.(b) The author has opined that there are three categories of inks known
\nas (1) Dyestuff writing inks (2) Iron Gallotannate inks and (3) the Alkaline
\ninks.   As far as usage of Dyestuff inks is concerned, it is impossible to
\nestimate its age chemically or any other methods and any attempt to estimate the
\nage of  a writing by controlled fading test is certain to prove abortive.  It is
\nalso stated that the estimation of the age of the dyestuff writing is one of the
\nurgent unsolved problems confronting the document examiner. [page 218]<\/p>\n
\t22.(c) Insofar as Iron Gallotannate Ink Writing is concerned, the ink line
\nexhibits and interesting series of colour changes as it  ages, and it is largely
\nbecause of this that many think that it is possible to determine the age of an
\nink writing from the colour. [page 219].\n<\/p>\n
\t22.(d)  Another passage in page No.220 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“with a genuine document several years old, the colour of the ink will
\nshow no appreciable change over a week or so, but any darkening as shown by an
\nincrease in the red component will afford conclusive evidence that the writing
\nis more recent than alleged.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.(e) Even the age of dyestuff ink writing can be determined as per the
\nauthor who has come out with the following version in page 124 of the book.\n<\/p>\n
“Aged Ink:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAs an ink ages, the dyestuffs therein slowly decompose, until
\nnothing but a crust of ferric oxide remains.  At this stage, the chromatogram of
\nanything which can be extracted from the ink line will bear little resemblance
\nto that derived from the original ink.  It might appear, therefore, that the age
\nof an ink writing might be determined from the appearance of the chromatogram,
\nbut experiments have shown that, as long as the ink has not decomposed, the
\nchromatogram is not appreciably affected.”\n<\/p>\n
\t23. New procedure for experiments  have been discussed in the authority
\n“Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents”  (second edition 2006) edited
\nby Jan Seaman Kelly and Brian S.Lindblom, of suspected documents and disputed
\ndocuments in pages 153 and 154, which read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“A microscopic spot test – the reaction of a minute drop of chemical
\nreagent on a portion of the ink stroke viewed under the microscope – helps to
\ndetermine that the document was written with a particular class of fluid ink,
\ne.g., iron base, synthetic dye, carbon ink, or pigment.  When properly
\nperformed, these tests make only a microscopic change in the document.  Although
\nnot utilized as much today as formerly, they are of particular value in
\ndemonstrating that two different inks were employed on a single document.
\nUnfortunately, spot testing does not necessarily distinguish between brands of
\nthe same class of ink.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is possible for different inks to react similarly when examined using
\nthe non-destructive techniques described above.  In this case, further
\ndiscriminatory testing using a technique called thin-layer chromatography (TLC)
\nmay be appropriate.  Because TLC results in a change to the document’s
\ncondition, it should be considered destructive (or at best semi destructive).
\nThe method requires removing very small samples of ink from the paper, a step
\nthat may require a court order or an arrangement among all parties to the
\ndispute.  The removal technique typically employs a microdisc hole punch or a
\nscalpel to remove small quantities of ink and paper.  TLC is the most popular of
\nchemical tests currently available.\n<\/p>\n
\tOther instrumental analyses are now available that allow further
\ndiscrimination of inks, such as gas chromatography\/mass spectroscopy (GCMS),
\nFourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR), and Raman spectroscopy.\n<\/p>\n
\tChemical tests are an important part of the identification of inks.
\nChemical composition can be determined by a combination of tests and
\ndemonstrated in legal proceedings in order to show that the document has been
\nbackdated or altered.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24.(a) The authoritative methodologies recommended in the authorities
\nsupra are self-explanatory.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.(b) The aforenoted opinions of the reputed authors on this subject as
\nnarrated above would make it abundantly clear that it is not impossible to
\ndiscover age of the ink.  Hence, the plea that the procedures have not evolved
\nso far in this country is no longer available and it cannot be acceded to.
\nGoing by the above clippings in the authorities, it transpires that it is not at
\nall difficult task to step into the experiments under the guidelines of
\nillustrious experts in this field.  The authorities and the officials concerned
\nhave to take initiatives to evolve procedures for experiments with latest
\ntechnology for achieving improvement on the subject.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. On the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches, the
\nauthors have provided procedures and devices, with reference to the names of
\nchemicals and reagents to be utilised, to solve the issue and it is incumbent
\nupon the experts to put the authoritative theories and the latest proved and
\nestablished technologies to empirical use.  They have to take the inventiveness
\ndrawing the proven and accepted principles from well settled authorities and the
\nGovernment have to provide necessary latest infrastructures in the Document
\nDivision of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and also allot necessary funds for
\nthe constitution of sophisticated  laboratory which is a full-fledged one in
\nthis regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The scientist can elect non-destructive technique where there is no
\nscope of destruction of disputed document. When the authorities effectively
\nsuggest various methods for subjecting a document for this purpose, it is high
\ntime for the scientists of this State and the Government committed them in use
\nin practice.  When the science has flourished to show enormous, remarkable,
\nstriking and much advanced improvements in all other fields, while sufficient
\nways and means are available in this sphere, they cannot be disregarded and
\nthrown overboard. The State shall take every possible step to provide the
\njustice delivery system to unearth actual evidence available in a case.  If the
\nscientists or experts come across any difficulties, they can very well bring to
\nthe notice of the authorities concerned.  At their request and proposal, the
\nGovernment shall allocate necessary means.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.(a) The expression that there is no scientific method available
\nanywhere in the country or State, more particularly in the Forensic Science
\nDepartment for scientific assessment of the age of handwriting to offer opinion
\nis far from acceptance.  A careful survey of the above authorities would unveil
\na fact that settled plans of actions for experiments are very much available and
\nwhen one steps into such experiments, there is further scope for upswing in the
\ntechnology.  It is bounden duty of the official concerned to follow the
\nprocedures.   As mentioned in para 12(b) of this judgment, even anterior to
\n1964, in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in Shashi kumar Banerjee’s
\nCase (supra) before the trial Court, the expert had stated that the
\ndetermination of the age could be ascertained definitely by a chemical test.
\nIt reveals that even prior to 1964, chemical tests were in application to find
\nout age of ink.  Now, the science in this branch has prospered to considerable
\ndimensions and it cannot hereafter be contended that it is not possible to
\nascertain the age of the ink by scientific method and exact result could not be
\nsecured. The scientists\/experts should appear before the Courts with opinionated
\nevidence in this regard, on their successful accomplishment of this assignment.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.(b) The advancements in establishing the facts in this field as a
\nscience continue through today. The explosion of modern technology has
\ninfluenced every facet of our lives, from introducing new avenues of written
\ncommunications to improvements in ink and ergonomic design of writing
\ninstruments.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The above said discussion on the strength of the authorities available
\nbefore the Court is only indicative, not exhaustive. It is not a sole-source
\ntraining manual.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. Adverting to the facts of the present case, since various scientific
\navenues are available for finding out the age of the ink in a document, it must
\nbe subjected to tests as suggested by various scientists.  I follow the ratio in
\nthe decisions in Kalyani Baskar’s case and T.Nagappa’s case above, and direct to
\nrefer the disputed document to such examination in order to provide an
\nopportunity to the accused, when a good material is available, to rebut the
\npresumption as per law, by non-destructive method in this regard.(Emphasis
\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n
\t30. If the expert concerned considers that such examination would
\ndestruct  a part of the document or the  document itself, they may report the
\nfact before the Court and the Court thereafter shall pass further orders for the
\nproof of the facts on the basis of pleadings and other evidence.  Latching  the
\nopportunity to the accused in the attempt at the stage of rebutting the
\npresumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
\nnot at all “fair trial”.  As per the settled law, every opportunity shall be
\nextended to the accused to establish his defence.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. In this situation, it is also regarded that it is the view of the
\nSupreme Court that some delay in taking steps for referring the document to the
\nwisdom of the expert cannot be a legal embargo for entertaining the plea.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In view of the above said study and discussion, I am fortified in my
\nview that the disputed document has to be referred to the expert for
\nascertaining the age of the ink and practical hardships, if any, sustained by
\nthe expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall
\nthereafter act according to the settled principles and  procedures, in affording
\nappropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence.  Hence,
\ninterference with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable,
\nwhich is set aside. The revision deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Court below
\nshall follow the prescribed procedures for referring the document to the expert.\n<\/p>\n
ggs<\/p>\n
Note : The Registrar Judicial, High Court, Madras is directed to place this
\nOrder before My Lord, the Honourable the Chief Justice, for circulating the
\ncopies of the Order to the following authorities:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t1.  Mr.K. Gnanadesigan (by name)
\n\t\t     Principal Secretary,
\n\t\t     Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
\n\t     \t     Secretariat,
\n\t\t     Government of Tamilnadu,
\n\t\t     Chennai 600009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t2.  Tmt.P. Dhanabagyam (by name)
\n\t\t     Director,
\n\t\t     Forensic Science Department,
\n\t\t     Forensic House,
\n\t\t     30-A, Kamarajar Salai,
\n\t\t     Mylapore,  Chennai 600004.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
\n    Paramakudi.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Public Prosecutor,
\n    Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n    Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/12\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU Crl. R.C.(MD) No.145 of 2010 A. Sivagnana Pandian .. Petitioner vs. M. Ravichandran .. Respondent Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":6625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\",\"name\":\"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2"},"wordCount":6625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2","name":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T08:31:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-sivagnana-pandian-vs-m-ravichandran-on-23-december-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}