Title: Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane vs. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande
Citation: Criminal Writ Petition NO. 542/2023
Coram: JUSTICE ANIL L. PANSARE
Decided on: 02-11-2023
Introduction:
In this case, the petitioner, who was the original complainant, is challenging an order dated 21.06.2023 issued by the learned Sessions Court in response to Criminal Revision Application No. 3/2023. This order was quashed and set aside from the previous order dated 13.12.2022, which was passed by a learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Yavatmal. The magistrate’s order rejected the application filed by the respondent-accused to appoint a handwriting expert for an ink age test of a disputed cheque.
Facts:
In this case, the petitioner, who was the complainant, is challenging an order passed by the Sessions Court. The order in question was quashed and set aside a previous order issued by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal. The magistrate had rejected the application filed by the respondent-accused to appoint a handwriting expert for an ink age test of a disputed cheque. The rejection was based on the precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Manish Singh Vs. Jeetendra Meera concluded that there is no scientific method available to accurately determine the age of ink and that it cannot be used to determine the date of writing.
The Sessions Court, while acknowledging the precedent, took exception to the magistrate’s order, arguing that the accused has the right to a fair trial and to defend themselves, including the right to present evidence such as a scientific test to determine the age of ink. The petitioner and respondent’s counsel presented arguments, with the respondent’s counsel suggesting that a chemical test might be used to determine ink age.
However, the petitioner’s counsel cited a judgment from the Madras High Court, stating that there is no scientific method available to ascertain the age of handwriting or ink. In light of this, the court concluded that attempting to determine the age of ink in this case would be futile, and it upheld the magistrate’s original decision. The case appears to revolve around whether an ink age test is a reliable and valid method for determining the date of writing on the disputed cheque and whether the accused should be allowed to pursue such a test in their defence.
Court analysis and judgement:
In this judgment, the court has made the following decisions and orders: The writ petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) is allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.06.2023, which was passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.3/2023, is quashed and set aside.
The order dated 13.12.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.3), Yavatmal, below Exh.49 in Summary Criminal Case No.2400/2016, is restored.
The parties involved in the case are directed to appear before the trial court on the scheduled date. In summary, the court has sided with the petitioner, and the order passed by the Sessions Court that quashed the magistrate’s decision to reject the application for an ink age test is reversed. The case is sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi
