IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6226 OF 2009 Between : Bhimanadham Venkata Narapareddy .... Petitioner A N D Oruganti Raghava Reddy …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6226 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.10.2009, in I.A.No.290 of 2009 in O.S.No.105 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to send the thumb marks contained in the suit promissory note along with admitted thumb marks of the petitioner for comparison and report by the expert, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the thumb marks in the pronote is not fit for comparison; and that a Court expert has examined the disputed thumb impression with admitted thumb impression and gave a report; and the opinion of the expert can be used as evidence as per the decision reported in Mohan Lal and another V. Ajit Singh and another[1]. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that the scope of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. He contends that as per the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 2009 (2) L.S. 60 (DB) the trial after recording reasons, can send the disputed thumb impressions to the second expert for comparison with admitted thumb impressions; and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference by this Court. 4. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep the Sub Ordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of this authority and to see that they do what this duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. 5. The evidence on finger impressions is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the person giving his opinion must be shown to be an expert and his report must complete in all respects with objective findings. Such objective reasons are taking in the report of first expert. Therefore, the respondent herein filed an application to send the disputed thumb impressions to second expert for comparison with admitted thumb impressions. If the first expert’s report is a full report with reasons, question of sending to second expert does not arise. 6. In M.Ramesh Babu V. M.Sreedhar[2], the Division Bench of this Court held thus: “Therefore, we are of the view that there is no bar to take the opinion of a second expert without setting aside the earlier report. However, it is not desirable to appoint second commissioner or to refer to the second expert without there being any valid reasons. There should be special circumstances and the Court must record its reasons for sending the document to the second expert or for appointing a second commissioner. If the circumstances warrant, the Court may appoint second commissioner or to seek the opinion of a second expert in the light of the language of Order XXVI Rule 10-A of C.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The salient features, essentials and distinction between Order XXVI Rule 9 and Order XXVI Rule 10-A of C.P.C.read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act always to be kept in mind. We are in complete agreement with the opinion of the learned Judge in Korvi Rosaiah’s case (3 supra). Moreover, we are of the view that the doors of the trial Court shall not be shut at the initial stage. The parties must be given full opportunity to adduce evidence and the other side must be given the same opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence”. 7. As per the law laid down by this Court, in certain circumstances seeking opinion of second expert is permissible. But that power has to be exercised by the trial Court after recording reasons. The reason given by the trial Court for sending the document to the expert is that the expert did not mention in writing as to why he eliminated the smudged portion of thumb impression marked as D from consideration. The expert did not give any explanation for not analyzing the smudged portion of thumb impression. Therefore, in view of the incomplete opinion given by the expert to the effect that the rigid chrematistics are outside the smudged portion, the trial court ordered for sending the documents to second expert, because it cannot be said to be a proper and full report. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in (1 supra) wherein it is held thus: “Nothing substantial has been urged to challenge the opinion of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau, and all that has been argued is that as there were only 8 points of similarity, there was not enough basis for the expert’s opinion about the identity of the fingerprints. Reference in this connection has been made to B. L.Saxena’s “identification of Handwriting, Disputed Documents, Finger Prints, Foot Prints and Detection of Forgeries”, 1968 Edition, page 247, Walter R. Scoot’s “Fingerprint Mechanics” page 62, and M.K.Mehta’s “The Identification of Thumb Impressions and the Cross-examination of Finger Print Experts” 2nd Edition, page 28. We have gone through these books but they do not really support the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. While referring to the old practice of looking for a minimum of 12 identical characteristic details, Saxena has admitted that the modern view is that six points of similarity of pattern are sufficient to establish the identity of the fingerprints. Walter Scott has stated that “as a matter of practice, most experts who work with fingerprints constantly satisfy themselves as to identity with eight or even six points of identity”. Mehta has also stated that in the case of blurred impressions the view of some of the Indian experts is that if there were three identical points, they would be sufficient to prove the identity.” In the above case, it is held that six points of similar pattern are sufficient to establish the identity of the fingerprints. That is a case where the entire fingerprints have been compared with the specimen fingerprints of the respondents therein. Hence, the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. But, in this case, the smudged portion of the disputed thumb impressions was not compared with the specimen fingerprints. It would be a different matter, if the expert gives the opinion that smudged portion of the disputed fingerprints, is not fit for comparison with the specimen fingerprints. The expert has not given any opinion in the expert report as to why he has not taken into consideration the smudged portion of the fingerprints for the purpose of comparison with the specimen fingerprints. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the disputed fingerprints are required to be compared with another expert and that order needs no interference as there is no jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 24, 2010. YVL [1] AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1183 [2] 2009 (2) L.S. 60 (D.B)