1

BEFORE THE HONBLE XX A.C.M.M,

AT BANGALORE

CC No.18120/2014

Complainant M. MOHAN KUMAR

V/s

Accused NEELAVATHI

OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE

COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT R/W SECTION 294 OF CR.P.C

The complainant most respectfully submits and prays as follows:-

1. The present application is not maintainable either in law or

on facts, hence it is deserved to be dismissed in Limine.
Application is filed with an ulterior motive to protract the
proceedings. This is the second time the present application
is filed earlier the accused had filed a similar application
and the said application was allowed, in order to afford an
opportunity to the accused to substantiate her case. The
report came in adverse to the accused, and the accused was
afforded with an opportunity to file her objections, but she
did not choose to file her objections or challenge the said
order, and the accused has come out with a fresh
application, hence the law presumes the order which is in
favour of the complainant and adverse to the accused has
attained its finality.

2. A bare perusal of the application depict the report was

conducted as per the memo of instructions provided by the

Page 1 of 3
 2

applicant as admitted by her but skilfully the

applicant/accused is trying to mislead this Honble court by
showing unwanted/trivial matters of the alphabets of
signature which does not fall under the basic characteristics
of the handwriting expert opinion. If at all, if the applicant
was not satisfied with the report, she had to file her
objections and chosen the expert to subject himself/herself
for cross examination and shall have elicited the truth, that
is what the law contemplates, all these legal aspects are
relinquished by the applicant which clearly shows that the
expert opinion order has attained its finality. Such being the
case a second application on a same subject matter is not
permissible under law.

3. Two prayers are not maintainable in one application, the

applicant has sought two prayers in the application i.e., at
Para-05 and in the conclusion of the application, hence on
this score alone the application deserves to be rejected.

4. The applicant was well aware the documents for expert

opinion is sent to truth lab, with full knowledge he has paid
the charges for obtaining the expert opinion, the moment
the order is in adverse to the applicant, now they have come
up with a new contention alleging truth lab is not a
government lab. Be as it may, Truth Lab is recognized by the
Government of Karnataka and central government, our own
High court has directed the subordinate courts to refer
Truth Lab for the for any expert opinion, on such
instructions the courts are sending the disputed documents

Page 2 of 3
 3

to the Truth Lab hence the contention raised by the

applicant has no weightage in the eyes of law. The reports
given by Truth Labs are valid in the court of law according to
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. All the experts of
Truth Labs were selected by Central and State Governments
based on their qualification, trained and then after certain
experience declared as accredited experts. They are declared
experts in varied fields of forensic science and gained
proficiency; as such their opinions and reports are legally
valid and the evidence is admissible in courts of law or for
any legal purpose.

5. All the experts of Truth Labs are qualified, trained,

experienced and accredited Forensic Scientists who served
the Central and State Government Forensic Institutions
throughout their lifetime honestly and retired honourably.
They have been tendering expert testimony in courts all over
India. In Truth Labs they have not only given legally valid
opinions but also rendered expert testimony in over 100
cases in courts and legal commissions.

6. All those averments which are not specifically traversed

herein are hereby denied as false and baseless and applicant
is put to strict proof of the same
Wherefore it is humbly
prayed that the application filed by the accused to be
rejected with exemplary costs to meet the ends of Justice

Bangalore Advocate for Complainant

20-05-2017

Page 3 of 3