The accused has the right to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the court must ensure a fair trial. The state has a duty to utilize available scientific methods to provide justice.

(1) THE petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 44 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, THE case originated on the private complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant on the strength of a cheque delivered to him by this petitioner. When the case was in the part-heard stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink.

(2) IN the petition filed by him, it is stated that the respondent has falsely claimed that for getting the loan, the petitioner has delivered cheque for RS 9,00,000/-, that in the cheque the petitioner laid his signature alone intending to get a loan of RS 1,00,000/- only from the respondent and reposing confidence upon the respondent, he handed over the cheque to him. At the time of delivering the cheque, the petitioner's signature alone was there and other particulars were not filled up. So in order to institute a false case, the contents were filled in the cheque afterwards. Hence, the age of the ink utilised for signature by the petitioner has to be ascertained by the forensic expert. Then only, the factual back ground would come to light and hence the cheque may be referred to forensic science expert.

In the counter filed by the respondent it is stated that the claim of the petitioner to find out the age of the ink in the signature is not covered by Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is meant only for comparison of the hand writings and signatures. The relief under the request of the accused is not required for the Court to decide the matter in issue. Without any ambiguity the petitioner admitted his signature in the cheque. Hence the claim for ascertaining the age is meaningless. The petitioner is the competent person to say about his signatures and hence the expert opinion is not essential. The petitioner has protracted the case for 7 years. The petition is filed purely with dishonesty, evil intention and with speculation. The only issue for consideration is whether the signature found in the cheque belongs to the accused or not. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

(3) AFTER hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application by observing that in view of the admission by the petitioner that he signed the cheque, even if he disputes the other contents of the cheque, the presumption has to be drawn and that only with a view to procrastinate the proceedings, the petition has been filed. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(4) IT is bottom-line contention of the petitioner's counsel Mr. A.V. Arun, that the petitioner conveyed the cheque to the respondent with his signature alone with an intention to get loan of RS 1,00,000/- only and the cheque was later filled up as if he was liable to pay RS 9 lakhs and that the age of the ink in the signature and other contents have to be brought to light, which would throw light upon the defence and the same would support his contention.

Repelling the above said contention, by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.R. Venkateswaran argued that there is no scientific method in vogue to ascertain the age of the ink and even if the document is referred for ascertaining the age of the ink, it would be a futile exercise, since the expert on the subject has represented before this Court in another case that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink and the documents which were referred for this purpose to the forensic laboratory were returned with report that it is not possible to detect the age of the ink.

(5) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Mudaliar AIR 2008 SC 2010 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 677 : (2008) 5 SCC 633 : (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 956 in which it is held as follows at p. 958 of MLJ (Crl):

"7. When a contention has been raised that the compla