HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3093/2018

Manish Singh S/o Late Shri Narotam Singh , R/o Plot No.58,

Shiva Colony, Imli Phatak, Jaipur 302015.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Jeetendra Meena S/o Late Shri Lal Meena , R/o C-77, J P

Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.

2.

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Shashank Agarwal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP for State

None present for respondent no.1.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

09/07/2018

REPORTABLE

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the

learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5,

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby prayer of the petitioner to

send the cheque in question to Forensic Science Laboratory

(hereinafter called as ‘FSL’) for analysis, especially for

determination of age of ink was dismissed, be set aside.

Briefly stated, the complainant/respondent had filed a

complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

alleging that the complainant had given a loan of Rs.2,60,000/- in

September, 2012 to the petitioner. It was further alleged that in

lieu thereof, petitioner had issued a cheque and the said cheque

(2 of 7)

[CRLMP-3093/2018]

on presentation had bounced. The petitioner accused in statement

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a definite stand that he

had taken loan of only Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and he

had paid the same in cash.

In the present case, it is contended that the

complainant/respondent has alleged that the loan was given to the

accused in September, 2012 and the cheque was also handed over

to him on the said date.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has submitted that blank cheque was filled later

by the complainant and in fact, the cheque was handed over on

11.6.2012.

On the basis of above stand taken, an application was

filed before the trial court that the cheque be sent to FSL for

determination of the age of ink and handwriting on the cheque.

The controversy raised in the present petition is not

new to the courts.

Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in

Sudarshan Kumar vs. Manish Manchanda reported in 2015

(4) RCR (Cr.) 68, after taking entire case law into consideration

held as under:-

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

cheques in question have been fabricated. These blank cheques

were issued in the year 2008 for the purpose of security for the

loan advanced to Harjinder Kumar, the brother of the petitioner.

These cheques were later on manipulated in the year 2011 by

filling in the body of the cheque. He contended that the

determination of the age of the writing/ink used to fill the body

of the cheque is essential for the just decision of the case and

the application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed by

the learned Magistrate. To support his contentions, he relied

upon case T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, 2008(3) RCR

(Criminal) 926 (SC).

(3 of 7)

[CRLMP-3093/2018]

4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. As per the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, it is alleged that the cheques in question have been

manipulated later on by filling in the necessary particulars in the

body of the cheques. He has pleaded that the cheques in

question should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to

determine the age of the ink used to fill in the necessary

particulars in the body of the cheques. But in my opinion, it is

not possible for a document expert to give any definite opinion

about the age of the ink as it is not known in which year the ink

used to write the document was manufactured. The

Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Union

of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitte