The opinion of a handwriting expert is relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, but scientific investigation should only be permitted if it advances the cause of justice and is necessary for adjudicating the dispute.

1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy in Cr.M.P.No.3817 of 2009 in C.C.No.702 of 2006 dated 13.11.2009 declining to send the documents namely, cheque and promisery note for comparison by the hand writing expert.

2. The short facts are as follows:

The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant on 04.01.1997 and executed a pro-note in favour of the complainant for the repayment of the amount borrowed. When the complainant demanded for the repayment of the above said amount, the petitioner/accused in discharging of his partly liability issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 1309.1997 in cheque No. 0421786 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Saliyamangalam, Branch. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment to the City Union Bank limited on 24.09.1997 it was returned with an endorsement as ‘Insufficient Funds’. The said bank intimated the fact of dishonour to the complainant on 24.09.1997. Thereafter, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the petitioner/accused on 28.09.1997 calling upon him to repay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque. The said notice was returned unserved as ‘unclaimed’. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.702 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy.

3. In the course of trial, the petitioner/accused, filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.3817 of 2009 seeking to send the cheque No.0421786 and the pro-note to the hand writing expert for comparison of those documents and to get expert’s opinion on those documents. The said petition was resisted by the respondent by contending that the petition has been filed belatedly just to drag on the proceedings.

4. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Trichy, dismissed the petition on the ground that nearly after 11 years this application has been filed and no purpose would be served on comparing the signatures and writings found in the documents namely pro-note and the cheque and further in the absence of any admitted signatures or writings of the accused, no comparison could be made by the Expert. On the above grounds the respondent submitted that it is not justifiable to allow such plea. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

5. Mr. M. Karunanithi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has disputed the signatures and writings in the pro-note as well as in the cheque and has taken the plea that it was not written in the year 1997 as alleged by the respondent and the same was written only in the year 2006 and therefore, he would submit that the said documents are required to be examined by hand writing expert for his opinion.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention referred to the testimony of a scribe of the pronote who has been examined as D.W.2 and has stated that the petitioner has not written the pro-note on 04.01.1997 as alleged by the respondent/complainant. He further submitted that the opinion of the hand writing expert would help the court in coming to a right conclusion in resolving the issues.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2007 (1) LW Cri 553 (in P. Arumugam Vs. Rajamani) and 2008 (2) LW Cri 916 (In Arunadevi Vs. K. Damodaran) in support of his contention that the age of the ink could be ascertained by an expert.

8. On the other hand, Mr. R. Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the present move on the part of the petitioner/accused for obtaining the opinion of the expert is intended to drag on the proceedings and no purpose would be served by obtaining the opinion of the expert as to the age of the ink since it is totally irrelevant factor for adjudication of th