Court quashes rejection of applicant's cheque sending application under Negotiable Instruments Act

The High Court quashed the rejection of the applicant's application to send cheques to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory under u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the rejection lacked justification and directed the trial court to reconsider the application, emphasizing the need for a proper basis for decision-making and expeditious determination of the ink's age relevance.

---

---

Issues Involved: Prosecution under u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, rejection of application for sending cheques to Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

Prosecution under u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The applicant was prosecuted for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a bounced cheque. The applicant filed an application to send the cheques to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the age of the ink. The rejection of this application was challenged by the applicant, claiming it deprived him of the opportunity to substantiate his defense. The opponent argued that the rejection was justified as the defense of the applicant regarding blank cheques was irrelevant to the case. The High Court noted that the trial court rejected the application without providing a basis for the decision, leading to the quashing of the order and remanding the matter back to the trial court for further consideration. The trial court was directed to decide on the application and the relevance of the ink's age expeditiously.

Rejection of Application for Sending Cheques to Central Forensic Science Laboratory:
The rejection of the applicant's application to send the cheques to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory was found to be without a proper basis by the High Court. The trial court had rejected the application citing the lack of a scientific method for determining the age of the ink on the cheques. However, the High Court held that the trial court's decision lacked justification as no reasoning was provided for the same. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and instructed the trial court to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, while keeping the question of the ink's age relevance open for the trial court's consideration.

---