The Karnataka High Court stated that an FSL report from a private laboratory cannot be dismissed without consideration and must have strong reasons for rejection. This observation was made in a series of criminal petitions filed by the accused, seeking to set aside an order taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 403, 420, 467, 468, 474, and 120-B of the IPC and to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
A Single Bench of Justice M.G. Uma elucidated, “Even if the accused takes a stand regarding authenticity of the FSL report issued by the private laboratory, they are free to take the same before the Trial Court for any justifiable cause. But it cannot be held that the report submitted by any private laboratory is to be binned without considering the same. There must be strong reasons either to reject or to disbelieve such FSL report.”
In this case, FIRs were registered based on complaints by the informants, a husband and wife, alleging that the accused conspired to forge their signatures, fabricated documents related to shares, and used these forged documents as genuine to commit cheating and misappropriation. It was claimed that in 2015, the complainants received a registered post from Accused No. 1, indicating that 90% of the company’s share capital owned by them had been transferred to the name of Accused No. 1.
The informants discovered that the signatures on the documents were forged. They claimed to have lost their share certificates and suspected that the accused had stolen and misused them, creating fake documents by forging their signatures. Consequently, they requested the police to register a case and take legal action against the accused.
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “It is the specific contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the disputed documents were referred for scientific examination and the report of the expert was obtained by the Investigating Officer before filing the chargesheet. A copy of the FSL report is produced for perusal of the Court.”
The informants discovered that the signatures on the documents were forged. They claimed to have lost their share certificates and suspected that the accused had stolen and misused them, creating fake documents by forging their signatures. Consequently, they requested the police to register a case and take legal action against the accused.
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “It is the specific contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the disputed documents were referred for scientific examination and the report of the expert was obtained by the Investigating Officer before filing the chargesheet. A copy of the FSL report is produced for perusal of the Court.”
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case is that, prima facie, the disputed documents do not contain the informants’ signatures, but instead, the signatures were made by the accused. It further stated that when such strong prima facie evidence is presented, there is no basis for the accused to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.
“It was noticed that there was a procedural lapse on the part of the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence. It is observed that the police appears to be partisan in supporting the accused and the investigation was not conducted dispassionately. Under such circumstances, the Court observed that there is serious error in referring the disputed documents for verification to private laboratory instead of sending it to forensic laboratory run by the Government”, it further remarked.
“We are all aware of the number of Forensic Laboratory set up by the Government and its conditions in the State in particular, and in the Country in general”, it added.
The Court concluded that the petitioners’ argument to disregard the FSL report from the private laboratory lacked merit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal petitions.
