Ink age examination on disputed promissory notes is futile where no reliable scientific method can determine timing accurately.

Where disputed promissory notes and cheques were sought to be sent for expert examination to determine the age of the ink and whether writings were filled up after signature, the Court held that no dependable scientific method exists to ascertain ink age with accuracy. It found that such an examination would not produce a conclusive result or assist the defence, and would only delay the proceedings. The request for scientific testing was therefore rejected as futile and unsustainable, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the documents comprising the promissory notes and cheques could be forwarded for expert examination to ascertain the age of the ink used in the writings and signatures.

Analysis: The revision sought a direction for scientific examination of the disputed documents to determine whether the contents were filled up later than the signatures. The Court noted the consistent view that there is no dependable scientific method available to determine the age of ink with accuracy, and that sending such documents for that purpose would not yield a conclusive result. The Court also accepted the finding that the proposed examination would not assist the defence and would only prolong the proceedings.

Conclusion: The request for sending the documents for ascertainment of the age of the ink was rightly rejected, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no reliable scientific mechanism exists to determine the age of ink on disputed documents, a court need not direct expert examination for that purpose, as such an exercise would be futile and legally unsustainable.

---