IMPORTANT POINT
There is no such expert available in India to offer any opinion regarding age of ink used for writing disputed document.

JUDGMENT

A. Arumughaswamy, J.—The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused against the order dated 06.06.2012 made in Crl. M.P. No. 3397 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 672 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in the case. The respondent alleges that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was not signed and issued by him to the respondent. It is his further contention that there was neither legally enforceable debt nor liability on the part of the petitioner impelling him to issue the cheque in question.

3. During trial of the case, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate to forward the cheque in question for opinion from a handwriting expert. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate forwarded the admitted signatures of the petitioner alongwith the disputed cheque for the purpose of comparison by an expert. On such comparison, the expert gave opinion that the disputed signature on the cheque would have been made by the petitioner. The said expert was examined as RW2 before the trial court. After the expert’s opinion, the petitioner again filed a petition in CrI.M.P. No. 3397 of 2012 requesting the court to forward the same disputed cheque to an expert for the purpose of finding out the age of the ink used for the writings. In fact, the endeavour of the petitioner is to prove that the cheque would not have been drawn as on the date mentioned thereon. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 6.6.2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

4. The vehement contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision is that the opinion already given by the Forensic Department that the signature found on the document would have been made by the accused need not in any manner be helpful for the court to come to a right conclusion.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said opinion is only to the effect that the disputed signature was made by the accused. There is no opinion already given that the said signature and the writings on the disputed cheque would have been made as on the date mentioned in the document. Further, according to the learned counsel, unless, the document is subjected to examination by an expert to find out the age of the ink and the writings, the petitioner would not be in a possession to prove his case. Thus, as a part of fair trial, according to the learned counsel, the cheque in question should be sent for examination by an expert to offer his opinion regarding the age of the ink and the writings. The learned counsel has relied on a few judgments of this court.

6. Before proceeding further on facts, let us have a quick survey of the judgments from this Court on this aspect.

7. In S. Gopal v. D Palachandran1, a question arose before this Court as to whether the age of the ink used for the writings on the disputed document could be ascertained by an expert in the Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Chennai. The learned single Judge [Justice M. Jeyapaul after having considered the said question held that there is no scientific expert available in the State with the Directorate of Forensic Science to scientifically test and find out the exact age of any such writing.

8. In the above said judgment, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that there is no expert available in the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, the document cannot be sent anywhere in this State for the purpose of scientific examination to find out the age of the ink used for the writings. The learned Judge did not say that there is no method at all available for the purpose of giving an expert opinion in respect of the age of the ink. Subsequently, the very same