Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane, the original complainant in a cheque dishonour case, challenged the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.3/2023. The Sessions Court had quashed and set aside the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal, below Exh.-49 in Summary Criminal Case No.2400/2016. The Magistrate had rejected the application filed by the respondent-accused, Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande, to appoint a handwriting expert for an ink age test of the disputed cheque. The Magistrate relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Manish Singh v. Jeetendra Meera, which referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, holding that there is no mechanism to determine the age of ink and that expert opinion on ink age cannot help determine the date of writing because the ink may have been manufactured years earlier. The Sessions Court, while recognizing this judgment, took exception to the Magistrate's order on the ground that the accused has a right to get a satisfactory opportunity to defend his case, and the doubtfulness of the accuracy of the scientific test cannot prevent the accused from taking the chance. The High Court heard both sides. The respondent-accused's counsel argued, relying on T. Nagappa v. Y. R. Muralidhar, that the accused has a right to fair trial and to adduce evidence under Section 243(2) CrPC. The High Court held that while there is no dispute on that proposition, courts must be vigilant in entertaining applications that are futile and have a sealed fate. The High Court found that the Magistrate's order was correct and the Sessions Court erred in quashing it. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order rejecting the application for ink age test.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Right to Fair Trial - Section 243(2) CrPC - Accused's Right to Adduce Evidence - The accused has a right to fair trial and to adduce evidence in defence under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but courts must be vigilant in entertaining applications that are futile and have a sealed fate. (Paras 4-5) B) Evidence - Handwriting Expert - Ink Age Test - No Mechanism to Determine Age of Ink - There is no mechanism to determine the age of ink, and expert opinion on ink age cannot help determine the date of writing because the ink may have been manufactured years earlier. Reliance placed on Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1971 SC 1093 and Manish Singh v. Jeetendra Meera. (Paras 2, 5) C) Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Dishonour - Summary Criminal Case No.2400/2016 - Application for Ink Age Test - The Magistrate rightly rejected the accused's application for ink age test of the disputed cheque as the test would be futile. The Sessions Court erred in quashing that order. (Paras 2-3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in allowing the accused's application for ink age test of a disputed cheque despite the settled legal position that there is no mechanism to determine the age of ink and such test would be futile.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court order dated 21.06.2023, and restored the Magistrate's order dated 13.12.2022 rejecting the application for ink age test.
Law Points
- Right to fair trial
- Right to adduce evidence under Section 243(2) CrPC
- Futility of scientific test for ink age
- No mechanism to determine age of ink
- Expert opinion cannot determine date of writing
