There are six Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs) in India under the control of the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS), MHA, GOI and one CFSL under Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) besides 29 State FSL in each state with some having Regional and District FSLs.
Truth Labs, the first independent forensic science laboratory in India, has been rendering a wide range of forensic analytical and field investigation services for the last 12 years. Currently, Truth Labs is operating from its 6 metropolitan offices located in Hyderabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Kolkata.
In A. Sivagnana Pandian vs M. Ravichandran on 23 December, 2010 of Mdras High court it was held that
The expression that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the country or State, more particularly in the Forensic Science Department for scientific assessment of the age of handwriting to offer opinion is far from acceptance. A careful survey of the above authorities would unveil a fact that settled plans of actions for experiments are very much available and when one steps into such experiments, there is further scope for upswing in the technology. It is bounden duty of the official concerned to follow the procedures.
It was even note that even anterior to 1964, in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in Shashi kumar Banerjee's Case, before the trial Court, the expert had stated that the determination of the age could be ascertained definitely by a chemical test. It reveals that even prior to 1964, chemical tests were in application to find out age of ink. Now, the science in this branch has prospered to considerable dimensions and it cannot hereafter be contended that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink by scientific method and exact result could not be secured. The scientists/experts should appear before the Courts with opinionated evidence in this regard, on their successful accomplishment of this assignment.
In furtherance, it was held that:
29. Adverting to the facts of the present case, since various scientific avenues are available for finding out the age of the ink in a document, it must be subjected to tests as suggested by various scientists. I follow the ratio in the decisions in Kalyani Baskar's case and T.Nagappa's case above, and direct to refer the disputed document to such examination in order to provide an opportunity to the accused, when a good material is available, to rebut the presumption as per law, by non-destructive method in this regard.(Emphasis supplied).
30. If the expert concerned considers that such examination would destruct a part of the document or the document itself, they may report the fact before the Court and the Court thereafter shall pass further orders for the proof of the facts on the basis of pleadings and other evidence. Latching the opportunity to the accused in the attempt at the stage of rebutting the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not at all "fair trial". As per the settled law, every opportunity shall be extended to the accused to establish his defence.
31. In this situation, it is also regarded that it is the view of the Supreme Court that some delay in taking steps for referring the document to the wisdom of the expert cannot be a legal embargo for entertaining the plea.
