DNYANESHWAR EKNATH GULHANE Vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA LOKHANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner-original complainant is aggrieved by order dtd. 21/6/2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.3/2023, whereby the order dtd. 13/12/2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal below Exh.-49 in Summary Criminal Case No.2400/2016, has been quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the respondentaccused to appoint handwriting expert for ink age test of the disputed cheque. It has rejected the application, inter alia, by relying upon judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Manish Singh Vs. Jeetendra Meera, (Misc. Petition No. 3093/2018), in which the High Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093, to hold that there is no mechanism to determine the age of the ink. The expert opinion to check age of the ink cannot help to determine the date of writing of the document because the ink used in the writing of the document may have been manufactured years earlier.

(3.) The Sessions Court, in the revision, has, though recognized and considered the aforesaid judgment, took exception to the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the accused has right to get satisfactory opportunity to defend his case. According to the Sessions Court, the doubtfulness of the accuracy of scientific test, which determines the ink, cannot prevent the accused from taking the chance of scientific test for determining age of the ink in writing by handwriting expert.