2012 (7) TMI 1150 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses Criminal Revision Petition over disputed cheque ink age delay tactic. Expert opinion upholds petitioner's signature.

K. Vairavan Versus Selvaraj

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed as the court deemed the request to determine the age of the ink on the disputed cheque as an attempt to delay ... Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - cheque in question was not signed and issued - expert's opinion to ascertain the age of the ink - According to the Petitioner, the cheque in question was not signed and issued by him to the Respondent. It is his further contention that there was neither legally enforceable debt nor liability on the part of the Petitioner impelling him to issue the cheque in question. HELD THAT:- the defence of the Petitioner/Accused is that the signature in the disputed cheque was not made by him. But, already, RW2-an expert has offered opinion that it would have been made only by him. It is only as an after thought that he has filed the present Petition for forwarding the document to ascertain the age of the ink. This in my considered opinion is only a devise to unnecessarily drag on the proceedings. Thus, the Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. In R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) TMI 1294 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. the learned Single Judge had summoned the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to the Court. The said expert informed the Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department to scientifically ascertain the age of any writing and to offer opinion. The learned Judge has further recorded that the said expert informed the Court that there is one institution known as Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government Organisation confined only to atomic research. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the cheque issuance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Admissibility and relevance of expert opinion on the handwriting.3. Feasibility of determining the age of the ink on the disputed cheque.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Cheque Issuance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The Petitioner/Accused contested the allegation that he issued a cheque to the Respondent/Complainant, which was dishonored, thereby constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner claimed that the cheque was neither signed nor issued by him, and there was no legally enforceable debt or liability that necessitated the issuance of the cheque.2. Admissibility and Relevance of Expert Opinion on the Handwriting:During the trial, the Petitioner requested the court to forward the cheque to a handwriting expert to verify the signature. The expert's opinion indicated that the disputed signature on the cheque was made by the Petitioner. The expert was examined as RW2 before the Trial Court. The Petitioner then filed another petition to have the cheque examined to determine the age of the ink used for the writings, aiming to prove that the cheque was not drawn on the date mentioned. This petition was dismissed by the Magistrate, leading to the current Revision Petition.3. Feasibility of Determining the Age of the Ink on the Disputed Cheque:The core contention of the Petitioner was that without determining the age of the ink, he could not prove his defense. The court examined multiple judgments to address whether the age of the ink could be determined scientifically. In S. Gopal v. D. Palachandran, it was held that no expert in Tamil Nadu could ascertain the age of the ink. This was reaffirmed in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, where it was noted that even the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Mumbai could not provide such an opinion. Further judgments, including V.P. Sankaran v. R. Uthirakumar and Indira Balasubramaniam v. S. Subash, reiterated the absence of experts capable of determining the ink's age scientifically.The court also referenced a recent interaction with the President of CFSL, Hyderabad, who confirmed the non-availability of experts to determine the ink's age. A fax message from the Assistant Director, CFSL, Hyderabad, corroborated this, stating, 'there is no validated method' to determine the ink's age.Given the consistent judicial findings and expert opinions, the court concluded that there is no expert available in India to ascertain the age of the ink used in the disputed document. Therefore, the Petitioner's request to send the cheque for such examination was deemed unfeasible.Conclusion:The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed on the grounds that the request to determine the age of the ink was an attempt to delay proceedings. The court upheld the expert's opinion that the signature on the cheque was made by the Petitioner and found no merit in forwarding the document for further examination regarding the ink's age.