9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1482 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - age of ink used in the cheque - reference can be made to any expert for ascertaining the age of the ink used on the disputed document/cheque, or not - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned order shows that before the Court below, the complainant has been examined. Seven documents have been marked. Four witnesses have been examined and at that stage, application has been filed. Cheque is stated to have been issued on 18.02.2013. As rightly observed by the Court below, petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been filed after the examination of the accused. There is no competent authority to ascertain the age of the ink and the said facility is stated to be not available in the Forensic Departments in India. There is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Court below, warranting interference. Criminal revision case is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Request to refer a disputed cheque to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the age of the signature. 2. Availability and reliability of scientific methods to determine the age of ink in India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Request to Refer Disputed Cheque for Signature Age Determination: The petitioner requested that the disputed cheque dated 18.02.2013 be referred to the Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, to determine the age of the signature. This request was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore District, which led to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case. The petitioner argued that the lower court failed to consider his claim that he did not issue the cheque and had denied its issuance from the beginning. He relied on the decision in Elumalai v. Subramani, which stated that it is possible to discover the age of ink, and scientific methods should be utilized to determine such facts. 2. Availability and Reliability of Scientific Methods to Determine the Age of Ink: The court considered various precedents and scientific opinions on the issue. In S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, it was held that determining the age of ink with scientific accuracy is not feasible, and even if old ink is used, it would not serve any useful purpose. The judgment in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh emphasized that scientific investigation should be permitted only if it conclusively helps in determining the controversy, but the age of ink cannot be determined accurately. In V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi, it was reiterated that no expert in India could offer a reliable opinion regarding the age of ink using scientific methods. Similarly, in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran, the court held that the disputed document should be referred to an expert, but practical hardships faced by the expert should be considered. In A. Devaraj v. Rajammal, the court ordered the disputed cheque to be sent to the Central Forensic Department, Hyderabad, but it was noted that there was no indication of expertise available there. In K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj, it was confirmed that no expert in India could determine the age of ink, despite the availability of scientific methods in theory. The court also referenced the judgment in Panneerselvam v. S. Bakkiam, where it was held that the age of ink could not be determined accurately, and such requests should not be entertained unless future advancements in science provide reliable methods. Conclusion: The court concluded that there is no competent authority in India capable of determining the age of ink used in disputed documents. The petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed after the examination of the accused, and there was no facility available in the Forensic Departments in India to ascertain the age of the ink. Consequently, the court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, affirming that the lower court's order did not warrant any interference.
|
