The court ruled on the limitations of expert opinion in handwriting analysis for cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.568/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala which was instituted by the 1st respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . This petition is directed against the revisional order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha declining to allow the application for sending the disputed documents for expert opinion. That matter was listed on different dates. I directed the Public Prosecutor to take instruction in the matter from the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory of the State Government as to whether the age of the particular writing can be determined by scientific examination. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, has produced a fax message from the Director, which is quoted herein below for ready reference:

Crl.M.C.665/2011 “From The Director.

To The Advocate General, Kerala, Ernakulam.

Sir, Sub:- Cr.M.C.665/2011 filed by Prof.Rajendra Babu- Remarks forwarding of – Reg.

Ref:- Fax Message No.V5-Cr.M.C.665/2011 dated 27.7.2011 of A.G., Kerala.

Kind attention is invited to the subject and reference cited.

It was directed to furnish expert opinion as to whether any method for ascertaining the age of the writings in a document is available or not.

In this connection it may be noted that there is no scientific technique available to determine the absolute age of writings or signatures found on documents. In other words, it has not been possible to determine accurately the period of execution of writings/signatures in documents.

This is for information.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Crl.M.C.665/2011 DIRECTOR”.

3. The signature in the cheque is not disputed. The counsel relying on a decision reported in T.Nagappa v. Y.R.Muralidhar [(2008) 5 S.C.C.633] held that the disputed handwriting and the age of the writing can be verified by scientific examination.

4. In view of the expert opinion, I am not inclined to entertain this application. It is open to the petitioner to lead cogent evidence to prove that the contents of the cheque are not in his handwriting, particularly when the contents were typed.

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

B.P.RAY, JUDGE.

rka