2010 (2) TMI 1315 - HC - Indian Laws

Negotiable Instruments Act - offence punishable u/s 138 - cheque not issued on the date mentioned - ascertaining the age of the writings and the age of the ink used for the writing - HELD THAT - Considering the matter on record and relying on different decisions we are of opinion that there is no expert in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act available who could be in a position to offer any opinion regarding the age of the ink by adopting any scientific method. In view of all the above, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi is restored. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dismissal of petition for expert opinion on age of writings and ink in a cheque.
2. Applicability of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for expert opinion.
3. Interpretation of judgments by the Supreme Court and High Court on the availability of experts for determining the age of ink.
4. Decision on the revision filed against the order of the Sessions Judge.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed a petition for expert opinion on the age of writings and ink in a cheque, which was dismissed by the Magistrate. The Respondent then filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the petition. The Petitioner challenged this decision through a revision before the High Court.

2. The High Court noted the absence of the Respondent during proceedings and proceeded to hear arguments from the Petitioner's Senior Counsel. The Counsel argued that no expert was available under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to offer an opinion on the age of the ink. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the impossibility of such determination.

3. The Counsel further cited a judgment of the High Court where the Assistant Director of Forensic Sciences Department clarified the unavailability of experts to ascertain the age of ink and writings. Additional reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision and other High Court judgments emphasizing the challenges in determining ink age through scientific methods.

4. Considering the precedents and the unavailability of experts for determining ink age, the High Court concluded that there was no expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act capable of offering an opinion on the matter. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's decision, closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the dismissal of the expert opinion petition and the subsequent revision filed, emphasizing the unavailability of experts for determining the age of ink in legal matters.