Crl. Revn. No.3216 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.3216 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 06.12.2010 Rajinder Kumar ..........Petitioner Versus Inder Dev ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sagar Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 8.9.2010 passed by JMIC, Ambala Cantt, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of an expert for obtaining opinion to determine the age of ink has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application has wrongly been dismissed by learned JMIC, Ambala Cantt by relying upon the judgment of this Court in S. Gopal Vs. D Balachandran 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 466,wherein, it has been held that age of ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing and it is for the trial Court to see whether the controversy in dispute is going to be solved or not. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Penumastha Ramachandra Raju Vs. Gaddam Raja Sekhar Reddy 2006 (2) DCR 767. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Crl. Revn. No.3216 of 2010 (2) petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on record. In this case, the plea of the petitioner was that the blank cheque without mentioning any date, amount and name in question was given as security to the complainant. It was also the case of the petitioner that the complainant has misused the blank cheque by filling the body of the cheque later on. In this case case, the petitioner has already admitted his signatures on the cheque. The trial Court by relying on the judgment of S.Gopal (supra), has rightly held that the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing, if the ink in dispute is manufactured five years prior to the date of execution of the document and used effectively on a particular date. Instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion and no useful purpose would be served by allowing such application. Although the opinion of expert is relevant under Section 45 and 46 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case, it is to be seen whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determine controversy raised in the dispute and such an investigation could be permitted. There is not merit in the revision petition, which required any interference of this Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, accordingly the same is dismissed. December 06, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Revn. No.3216 of 2010 (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No