Delhi High Court: Mere Apprehension of Tampering Insufficient to Send Documents for Forensic Analysis.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court’s refusal to send sealed documents for forensic examination under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that a mere apprehension of tampering, without any substantiating evidence, cannot justify such a direction. Observing that the trial court’s administrative inquiry had revealed no tampering and that photocopies matched the original documents, the Court found the petition frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner.

Background:

• The petitioner, Rahul Tyagi (plaintiff before the trial court), had filed certain documents including a Will, General Power of Attorney, and Possession Letter in a sealed cover before the trial court.

• Upon observing that the seal appeared broken when the envelope was opened, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking forensic examination of the documents, alleging possible tampering.

• The trial court conducted an administrative inquiry which revealed that the plastic tape sealing the envelope was intact and that minor cracks in the lac seal likely resulted from storage pressure among numerous files.

• The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application, finding no evidence of tampering. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim rested merely on apprehension, not on concrete evidence of tampering.

• It observed that when sealed envelopes are stored in bulk in court record rooms, cracks in wax or lac seals may occur due to the weight of files, but that does not imply interference with the contents.

• The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s reliance on Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal (2008 SCC OnLine SC 321) was misplaced since that precedent concerned handwriting comparison rather than allegations of tampering.

• It also found that the photocopied documents filed by the petitioner were identical to the originals taken out of the envelope, negating his apprehensions.

• Sending documents for forensic analysis without evidence would, in the Court’s view, only delay proceedings unnecessarily.

Decision:

The petition was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed as frivolous. The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹10,000 as costs with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Opinions of experts.

• Article 227, Constitution of India – Power of superintendence of High Courts over subordinate courts.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXX

Case: Rahul Tyagi v. Kamlesh & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025

Case No.: CM(M) 2150/2025, CM APPL. 70381/2025 & 70382/2025