2020 (1) TMI 1605 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - request of the petitioner for examining Handwriting Expert declined - tampering with the cheque - contention of the petitioner is to the effect that digit 1 had been written before the figure 15, 000/- so as to make it Rs. 1, 15, 000/- - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - In any case although the science pertaining to finger print examination is developed to a great extent and is reliable and to a great extent the science of handwriting comparison is also developed but as far as the science of age of ink is concerned the same is not so developed so as to make the same the basis for reaching at any finding by the judicial Courts. It is virtually nigh impossible for a document expert to opine definitely as to when the ink as existing on the document was used on the disputed document because another relevant question that would crop up so as to raise doubts about such opinion would be as to the actual age of ink i.e as to when the ink in question was manufactured. This Court in SUDARSHAN KUMAR VERSUS MANISH MANCHANDA 2015 (5) TMI 1240 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein an accused facing trial in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 had moved an application at the stage of the defence evidence for sending the cheques in question to the Director Forensic Laboratory for the purpose of determining the age of the writing in the body of the cheque and his application had been dismissed upheld the order of dismissal. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is hereby affirmed - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to trial court's order declining request for examining Handwriting Expert.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order declining the request to examine a Handwriting Expert. The background of the case involves a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioner was accused of borrowing money and issuing dishonored cheques. The petitioner sought to examine a Handwriting Expert to prove tampering with the cheques. The trial court partially allowed the application for witnesses but declined the Handwriting Expert examination request.

The petitioner argued that the cheques were tampered with, altering the amount from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,15,000, causing serious prejudice. However, the court observed that the difference in the way the digit '1' was written on the cheques was not substantial enough to prove tampering. The court also noted that the amount was clearly written in words without any signs of tampering or interpolation.

Regarding the science of determining the age of ink, the court highlighted the limitations and unreliability of such analysis. Citing previous legal precedents, the court emphasized that determining the age of ink lacks accurate scientific methods. The court referred to cases where expert opinions on ink age were dismissed due to the inability to provide definitive conclusions.

Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no error in declining the Handwriting Expert examination request. The petition was dismissed based on the lack of merit in challenging the trial court's order.