The main legal point established is that the court's decision on expert opinion is influenced by the unavailability of a method to determine the age of the writing in the cheque, impacting the accused's ability to prove her defense.

1. The Petitioner/Accused focussed the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.07.2011 in C.M.P. No. 3935 of 2009 in C.C. No. 79 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai, while passing the impugned order in C.M.P. No. 3935 of 2005 in C.C. No. 79 of.2007 on 06.07.2011, has, among other things, observed that already, in order to find out the difference between the age of the signature in the cheque and the writings in the cheque till date, no final report has been filed in regard to the cheques sent from the Court after the examination of the same by Experts and per contra, the examination results have come which point out that age of the ink could not be found out and therefore, in order to prevent the delay which is to occur any further in the case and also when the age of the ink could not be found out, the sending of the cheque in order to find out the age of the ink in regard to signature is not in furtherance of justice and ultimately dismissed the petition.

2. Assailing the propriety of the dismissal order passed by the trial Court in C.M.P. No. 3935 of 2011 in C.C. No. 79 of 2007 dated 06.07.2011, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submits that it is the consistent case of the Petitioner from the early stage that she borrowed only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Respondent/Complainant and issued an unfilled cheque in his favour as a security and that the Respondent/Complainant, as against the trust reposed, has filled up the cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) without her knowledge and consent and presented the cheque for collection.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused urges before this Court that in order to establish her defence, she filed C.M.P. No. 3935 of 2009 in C.C. No. 79 of 2007 on the file of trial Court to refer the cheque to an handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the writings found in the cheque. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that there is no facility available in the Forensic Department to find out the age of the ink.

4. To lend support to the contention that the accused can very well request the Court to forward a document for an expert opinion, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Accused relies on the decision of this Court in R. Jagadeesan vs. N. Ayyasamy and Another, 2010 (1) CTC 424 wherein it is, inter alia, held that 'Fair trial is sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence as has been recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further, it is held that the accused can very well request the Court to forward a document for expert opinion and moreover, it is for the Court to first of all take a decision as to availability of an expert'.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused cites the decision of this Court in A. Devaraj vs. Rajammal, (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 440 wherein it is held thus:

Determination of age of the ink used can be ordered by the Court where the issuance of cheque is disputed by accused, as part of fair trial to give a chance to accused to prove his case when the facility is available.

6. He seeks in aid of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2008 dated 24.04.2008 wherein in paragraphs 9 to 12 it is observed and held hereunder:

9. The learned trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument and the same being subject to the conditions as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam (in which one of us, L.S. Panta, J., was a