The main legal point established in the judgment is that ink age tests are not reliable or of practical use in determining the date of writing, as evidenced by conflicting expert opinions and previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing the Order dtd. 20/1/2020, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise offences, Nellore[Hereinafter, trial court"] in Crl. M.P. No.9 of 2020 in C.C.No.282 of 2016, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner/accused for sending the cheque in question to the expert, for determination of age of the ink, has been dismissed. Procedural History

2. The petitioner herein was the accused and the Respondent was the complainant before the trial Court.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in a private complaint, filed by the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881[Hereinafter, "N.I. Act"]. After submitting written arguments on behalf of both parties, petitioner moved an application for sending the cheque in question to an expert, for the purpose of determining the age of the writing in terms of the signature. The petitioner's stand for such a plea is that cheque and promissory note were procured by his brother-in-law relating to his contract work at Madhya Pradesh in the year 2007 and have been misused by him, through the complainant in the year 2012. Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strengths his arguments on the grounds that the cheque and promissory note in question were in the year 2007, to the brother-in-law of the petitioner i.e., Ravipati Venkateswarlu, who worked under him at Katni District of Madhya Pradesh. During that time, the petitioner handed over this document for the purpose of contract in his absence. He submits that they were later manipulated in the year 2012, by filling in the body of the cheque. He would submit that the determination of age of the signature is essential for the just decision of the case by providing an opportunity of rebuttal, in light of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act., which operates on the proof of foundational fact, in favour of the complainant. Learned Counsel would urge that his application was wrongfully dismissed and prays for indulgence of the Court.

5. Refuting the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that for the first time in Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination, accused has introduced the story that he has signed on the cheque in the year 2007, but it was manipulated in the year 2012, by his brother in law through the complainant. He submitted that it was not even suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that he signed on the cheque in the year 2007, but not in 2012. He would urge that, the opinion of an expert relating to determination of the age is not a perfect science and that there are no scientific methods available for accurate assessment of the age of the ink and writing. He would finally submit that the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the petition, since the application has been filed at the fag end when the matter reached at the stage of judgment only to drag the proceedings. Consequently, it is submitted that the Petition deserves dismissal.

Point for Determination

6. Heard Sri Venkata Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Eathakota Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record.

7. The short point that arises for determination is as follows;

Whether the Order dtd. 20/1/2020 passed by the trial court dismissing the application to send the cheque in question for determination of age of ink to an expert warrants any interference of this Court or not?

Determination by the Court

8. This is not a case, where the petitioner denies his signature on the cheque as well as promissory note. His case is that he signed on a blank promissory note and cheque and gave it to his brother-in-law one Ravipati Venkateswarlu, in connection