2015 (5) TMI 1240 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - manipulation of the cheque - 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 - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - This Court in case YASH PAL VERSUS KARTAR SINGH 2003 (5) TMI 536 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has also laid down that expert opinion to check the age of ink cannot help to determine the date of writing of the document as the ink used in the writing of the document may have been manufactured years earlier. In case TARSEM SINGH VERSUS RAVINDER SINGH 2013 (12) TMI 1734 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT this Court has again reiterated that there is no scientific method available for determine the age of the ink. In case S. GOPAL VERSUS D. BALACHANDRAN 2008 (1) TMI 991 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the Hon ble Madras High Court has taken the same view and laid down that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy. In view of the consistent rule of law laid down in the cases referred above it will not be possible for an expert to give any definite opinion on the age of the ink as there is no accurate scientific method to determine the age of the ink. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash order dismissing application to send cheques to Forensic Laboratory for age determination.

Analysis:
The petitioner, facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of IPC, sought to determine the age of writing on cheques issued in 2008 but allegedly manipulated in 2011. The petitioner argued that determining the age of the ink used is crucial for a just decision. Citing case law, the petitioner contended that the cheques were fabricated, but the Magistrate dismissed the application.

The judge considered the petitioner's contentions, noting the allegation of manipulation in filling the cheques. However, the judge opined that determining the age of the ink is inconclusive due to the ink's manufacturing date uncertainty. Referring to precedents, including a Supreme Court case, the judge highlighted the impossibility of definitively determining ink age. The judge cited various cases reiterating the lack of scientific methods to ascertain ink age, emphasizing the consistent legal position on the matter.

Based on the legal precedents and the lack of scientific accuracy in determining ink age, the judge concluded that the expert opinion on ink age cannot provide conclusive evidence. The judge dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit due to the absence of illegality in the Magistrate's order. The reliance on case law by the petitioner was deemed unhelpful in light of the Supreme Court's judgment on the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.