1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.110 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Maniram .. Petitioner/Accused Vs. Dr.S.V.Shanmugham .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer : Criminal revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 31.12.2010 in Cr.M.P.No.8186 of 2010 in C.C.No.568 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Ramadurai O R D E R This revision arises against the dismissal of an application moved by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.8186 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.568 of 2001 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, seeking the instrument in question viz., cheque in respect of which has offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is alleged, to be forwarded to the Forensic Lab at Chennai for the purpose of obtaining expert opinion upon the age of the ink. 2. Though several reasons have been stated by the lower Court justifying the order of dismissal, I have considered the decision of this Court reported in 2010-1-L.W.(Crl.) 165 (R.Jagadeesan Vs.N.Ayyasamy and other), wherein this Court heard the Assistant Director, Forensic Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, who informed that there was no scientific method available anywhere in the state and particularly, in the Forensic Science Department, to scientifically assess the age of any writing and to offer opinion. Such expert also informed that there was one Institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is a facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made and that the same was a Central Government Organisation. Such expert further informed that even such opinion could not be exact. Hence, this Court had found sending the documents for opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents should not be resorted to hereafter by the Court unless, in future, due to scientific advancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the writing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque has been written by use of both fountain pen as also ball point pen. The same would show the falsity of the complainant’s case. It will be open https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to the petitioner to raise such contention before the lower Court and the lower Court shall deal with such contention strictly on merits. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vsm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. 2. Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.R.Ramadurai, Advocate SR.No.9135. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.110 of 2011 Dated:15.02.2011 2P/4C RPB 10.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/