T. MOHANRAJ Vs. A. BRITTO JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Court below dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner to send the cheque in question for opinion to a handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the ink found in the signature.

(2.) The Court below had dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that no such facility is available in any of the laboratories, to find out the age of the ink.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the disputed cheque was issued in the year 1992 and the same was used in the very same year itself and the signature found in the cheque was put in the year 1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cheque was misused and filled up and has been deposited in the year 2011, which resulted in filing of the complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.