$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4526/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18746/2026 SAINI CONSTRUCTION CO THR. ITS PROP. HAWA SINGH SAINI .....Petitioner Through: versus RAJ SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant Arora & Ms. Vandana Rathore Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 18748/2026 (Condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. The delay of 128 days in re-filing the present petition stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 18747/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4526/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18746/2026 1. The petitioner vide the instant petition seeks to challenge the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Cr. Rev. 174/2025 affirming the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby, the application for verification of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10 the age of ink filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner claims that he gave a blank signed cheque in the year 2009 to one Govind Sunar, respondent’s father as security for gold item worth Rs. 45,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he later gave Rs.48,000/- in cash but the cheque was not returned. It is the petitioner’s submission that after about seven years the cheque was presented for encashment and when the same got dishonoured, the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(NI Act) has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thus filed the application of FSL examination of age of ink to prove the signature, whether the same was made in the year 2009 or in the year 2015. Such a plea was taken by the petitioner on the pretext that the cheque in question was given in the year 2009 and not in the year 2015. The petitioner, however, does not dispute the signature. What is submitted by the petitioner is that the cheque was signed in the year 2009 and not in the year 2015. The concerned Court rejected the application and the order of rejection has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. The petitioner, therefore, challenges both the order before this Court in the instant petition. He has also placed reliance on T.Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar.1 2. The Court has considered his submissions made by the petitioner and finds that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 3. The Court finds that the reliance has rightly been placed by the Revisional Court in the case of K. Ramesh vs. K. Kothandaraman,2 whereby it has been held that a meaningful reading of the provisions of NI Act, including, in particular, Section 20, 87 and 139 makes it amply clear 1 MANU/SC/7523/2008 2 MANU/SC/0259/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10 that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 4. Reliance can also be placed on the decision in the case of Yashpal v Kartar Singh3 where the court has held that the verification of the age of the ink is not likely to be conclusively determined through the writing of a particular year. In fact the age of the cheque cannot be determined on the basis of the writing if the ink was manufactured five years prior to the date of the execution of the document and used effectively on a particular date for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy, it would create confusion. Therefore, it has been held that no useful purpose would be served by allowing such application. 5. The decision of T. Nagappa was also cited before the Bombay High Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane v. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande,4 where the Court materially held as under: “6. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the chemical test could be an answer to the issue as, according to him, by a chemical test, age of the ink may be ascertained with certain accuracy. A query was made as to whether there exists any scientific laboratory where this test could be conducted, the learned counsel submitted that this facility is available at BARC. 7. This submission has been put to rest by the learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting my attention to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of Kanagaraj v. Ramamoorthy, (C.R.P. (MD) No. 601/2021 and C.M.P. (MD) No. 3344/2021). The issue of 3 AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344 4 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2431 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10 the age of the ink arose in the said proceedings as well. The High Court referred judgment in the case of R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyaswamy, (2010) 1 CTC 424. The Court noted thus: “7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said statement, this Court had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.R. Elango to request either the Director or the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai to be present before this Court to explain the position. Accordingly, today, Mr. A.R. Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is kind enough to be present before this Court. According to him, he is the Head of the document division of the department. On a query made by this Court regarding the above position, he would explain to this Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department, to scientifically assess the age of any writing and to offer opinion. However, he would submit that there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government organisation. According to him, even such opinion cannot be exact. He would further submit that since it is a Central Government Organisation and confined only to atomic research, the documents relating to prosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent to that institution also for the purpose of opinion. He would further submit that if a document is sent for comparison, with the available scientific knowledge, opinion to the extent as to whether the same could have been made by an individual, by comparing his admitted handwritings or signatures, alone could be made. He would further submit that if there are writings with two different inks in the same document, that can alone be found out. But he would be sure enough to say that the age of the writings cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion. 8. In view of the above clear and unambiguous statement made by no less a person than the Head of the Department of Forensic Science, I am of the view that the whole exercise adopted in various Courts in this State to send the disputed documents for opinion to the Forensic Department in respect of the age of the writings and the documents is only futile. If any document is so sent, certainly the department will say that no opinion could be offered. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Director would inform the Court that already many such documents, which were sent to them by various Courts in the State for such opinion, have been returned by them with the report that no such opinion could be offered. 9. In view of all the above, in my considered opinion, sending the documents for opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10 should not be resorted to hereafter by the Courts unless, in future, due to scientific advancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the writings.” 8. As could be seen, 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. The expert further stated that there is one institute known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, (which the counsel for the respondent referred to), where there is facility to find out the proximate range of the time, during which the writing would have been made but the opinion is not exact and further the facility is available only to atomic research and not to the documents relating to the prosecution and other litigation. He has firmly stated that the age of writing cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion. 9. 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. 10. The case of the respondent is that he had issued blank cheque Exh.-26 to the petitioner on 05.01.2010 as a security. The petitioner has misused the cheque by filling up the contents in the cheque in the year 2016. Thus, the respondent has admittedly signed the cheque on 05.01.2010. His contention is that the remaining contents of the cheque were filled up on or after the year 2016. The application was accordingly filed by the respondent before the trial Court to ascertain the age of the ink. The trial Court, by relying upon the judgment in the case of Manish Singh supra, has rejected the application for the reason that there is no scientific concrete test available for determination of the age of the ink. This finding has been upset by the Sessions Court in the revisional jurisdiction, only on the ground that the respondent - accused should get sufficient opportunity. 11. To my mind, this exercise would not yield any benefit to either of the parties, considering the expert opinion recorded in Jagadeesan's case supra.” 6. The reliance on T.Nagappa is also misplaced for the reason that in the order impugned therein the sole reason for rejecting the application seeking verification of age of ink of the signature, was cited to be section 20 of the NI Act. However, in the facts of instant case, the Court below, in addition to section 20 of the NI Act, has also importantly discussed the implication of the ink being beyond 5 years of age, the inconclusive opinion which shall be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10 reached as a result thereof, and the unavailability of facilities to calculate the exact age. Furthermore, the revisionist Court has granted sufficient opportunity to the accused to discharge its burden in accordance with the provisions of the NI Act. 7. In view thereof, the Court is fully satisfied with the view taken by the Court below and finds no justification to direct for the age verification of the ink. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 3, 2026 Nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:10