Determining the age of ink on a document does not assist in establishing its validity when the signature is not disputed, as held under Section 45.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘ BNSS ’) to quash the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in STC.NI.No.19 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in STC.NI.No.19 of 2021 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT to send the cheque bearing No.000011 dated 01.07.2021 to expert at Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad for comparison and analysis of age of ink over the signature, date and name of payee on the said cheque. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 09.09.2024, dismissed the petition on the ground that the age of the ink cannot be determined by any scientific method. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

3. Heard Sri G. Eashwaraiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 did not obtain the subject cheque from the father of the petitioner and he received the subject cheque in the year 2017 during a loan transaction, after demise of his father, respondent No.2 filled the date as 01.07.2021. He further submitted that an opportunity is given to the petitioner to prove his defence. Even if the opportunity is given to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2, therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2024 in STC.NI.No.19 of 2021.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2646 of 2019, wherein it is held as follows:

“Therefore, as the trial Court has already come to a conclusion in its earlier order passed in I.A.No.480 of 2017 that as requested by the defendant that the document i.e., Ex.A-1 promissory note is to be sent to the expert for examination to ascertain the age of the ink, the second application filed by him to send the said Ex.A-1 promissory note to another lab i.e., the Truth Labs and Truth Finders, ought not to have been rejected. Ultimately, the object of sending the said document for examination to ascertain the age of ink is to appreciate the rival contentions of both the parties in the suit and to find out whether Ex.A-1 promissory note is genuine or not. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.”

6. Learned counsel further the petitioner further relied upon the Judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran , 2011 Cri. L.J. 4152 wherein in paragraph No.32, it is held as follows:

“32. In view of the above said study and discussion, I am fortified in my view that the disputed document has to be referred to the expert for ascertaining the age of the ink an practical hardships, if any, sustained by the expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall thereafter act according to the settled principles and procedures, in affording appropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence. Hence, interference with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable, which is set aside. The revision deserves to be allowed.”

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 opposed t