IMPORTANT POINT
No competent authority to ascertain age of ink, said facility stated to be not available in Forensic Departments in India.

S. Manikumar, J.—Request of the petitioner to refer the disputed cheque dated 18.2.2013 to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, to find out the age of the signature, has been rejected, vide order made in Crl.M.P.No.2070 of 2014 in C.C.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore District dated 2.12.2014 and that the same is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case on the grounds inter alia that the Court below has failed to consider the petitioner’s case that he has not issued the cheque to the respondent and from the very beginning, the petitioner has denied issuance of the cheque.

2. Reliance is placed on the decision in Elumalai v. Subramani, 2011 (3) CTC 616 this Court held as follows:

The aforenoted opinions of the reputed authors on this subject as narrated above would On the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches, the authors have provided The scientist can elect non-destructive The expression that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the country or The advancements in establishing the facts in this field as a science continue through The above said discussion on the strength of the authorities available before the Court Adverting to the facts of the present case, since various scientific avenues are available.

3. Let me consider some of the decisions of this Court on the above issue.

(a) In S.Gopal v. D.Balachandran, (2008)1 MLJ (Cri) 769 revision petition

(b). Following the judgment in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh, 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 93

As rightly observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the ratio referred to above. 15. It is found that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy.

Further, the use of old ink manufactured long ago will definitely create a dent in the opinion furnished by an expert. Therefore, there is no necessity for sending the disputed cheque admittedly signed by the petitioner to an expert for his opinion. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode in C.M.P No.2915 of 2007 in C.C.No.1287 of 2006 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court.”

(c). It is worthwhile to consider the judgment in Yashpal’s case, wherein the defendant in a suit, filed an application under Order 26, Rule 10A of Cr.P.C., and Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, for a direction to send the disputed promote therein, and to obtain a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT Delhi, to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps.

The Civil Judge dismissed the same. In the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at paragraph No.5 held as follows:

“A perusal of the afore-mentioned provision shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and the determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11.2.1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11.2.1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the C