Admitted signature evidence cannot justify expert testing of ink age when scientific reliability and trial utility are lacking.

In a cheque prosecution where the drawer admitted the signatures, the Madras HC held that sending the cheque and related documents for expert opinion on the age of ink, writings, or signature was unwarranted. The Court reasoned that, after several years, such opinion cannot be obtained with scientific precision and would not assist the trial court in adjudication. Since the admitted signatures did not create a genuine need for such examination, the order permitting expert analysis was set aside and the revision was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether documents in a cheque prosecution, where the drawer had admitted the signatures, could be sent for expert opinion to determine the age of the signature, writings, ink, and related particulars.

Analysis: The complaint arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the trial court had permitted expert examination under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The disputed documents were already several years old, and the accused had admitted the signatures on the cheques and related documents. The Court held that an opinion on the age of ink or writings cannot be given with scientific precision after such lapse of time and that sending admittedly signed documents for that purpose would not assist the trial court. The attempt to seek such examination was therefore found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The order permitting expert examination was set aside and the revision was allowed.

Final Conclusion: A cheque or related document with admitted signatures should not be sent for expert opinion merely to determine the age of ink or writings when such examination would not yield a reliable or useful result.

Ratio Decidendi: Where signatures on the disputed cheque documents are admitted, expert examination to determine the age of ink or writings is not warranted if such opinion cannot be obtained with scientific reliability and would not aid the adjudication.

---