Delhi High Court – Orders
Saini Construction Co Thr. Its Prop. … vs Raj Singh on 3 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~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
ORDER
% 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 21:04:52
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 21:04:52
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 21:04:52
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 documentsThis 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 21:04:52
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 21:04:52
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 21:04:52
