No Scientific Method To Determine Age Of Ink Used In Writing: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Allowing Ink-Age Test On Disputed Cheque

Observing that there is no scientific method to determine age of the ink in a document, the Bombay High Court recently set aside sessions court order allowing an ink-age test by a handwriting expert on a disputed cheque in a cheque dishonour case.

Justice Anil L Pansare of the Nagpur bench, in a writ petition challenging the sessions court order, relied on the expert opinion recorded by the Madras High Court in 2010 confirming the absence of a definitive scientific method to assess the age of handwriting accurately.

“the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, the expert in the field, has stated that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the State, more particularly in the Forensic Sciences Department to scientifically assess the age of hand writing and to offer opinion… This being the position, there is absolutely no justification to have futile attempt to find out the age of the ink on the instrument under question”, the court held.

The petitioner Dnyaneshwar Gulhane filed a cheque dishonour case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class against respondent Vinod Lokhande. Lokhande disputed the cheque and sought appointment of a handwriting expert to conduct an ink-age test on the cheque. He alleged that he issued a blank signed cheque in 2010 to Gulhane as security, and Gulhane misused the cheque in 2016 by filling up the rest of the contents in the cheque.

The JMFC rejected the application citing Rajasthan High Court judgment in Manish Singh v. Jeetendra Meera which held that there is no mechanism to determine the age of the ink as the ink used in the writing of the cheque might have been manufactured years earlier.

Lokhande approached the sessions court in a revision application. The sessions court acknowledged the precedent but held that the accused had a right to a satisfactory opportunity to defend their case. It opined that the doubtfulness of the accuracy of the ink age test cannot prevent the accused from getting an option to get a scientific test by handwriting expert to determine the ink's age and allowed the application.

Thus, Gulhane filed the present writ petition challenging the decision of the sessions court.

The court observed that while the accused has a right to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend himself, “where the exercise is found to be undertaken in futility, the Courts below will have to be vigilant in entertaining the applications which, even if allowed, has a sealed fate.”

Advocate SG Joshi for the accused Lokhande contended that a scientific ink-age test would aid in establishing the timeline of the written content on the disputed cheque. He said that the BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) could conduct such tests.

However, advocate NR Shiralkar for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kanagaraj v. Ramamoorthy which cited the judgment in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyaswamy.

This case recorded the statement made by AR Mohan, then Assistant Director of the Document Division of the Forensic Science Department in Chennai. He stated that the facility at BARC, Mumbai, could provide an approximate range of the time during which the writing was made, but stressed that the opinion would not be exact, and that the facility is limited to atomic research, not for documents related to litigation. He asserted that the age of writing cannot be determined to offer any opinion.

Considering this expert opinion, the court concluded that there is no justification to have futile attempt to find out the age of the ink on the cheque. The court emphasized that pursuing an ink-age test would not be beneficial for either party as Lokhande failed to show the existence of any mechanism or scientific test to ascertain the age of the ink on the cheque.

Thus, the court upheld the decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal, and set aside the order of the Sessions Court.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 542/2023

Case Title – Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane v. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande