ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Revision Petition No.10/2016 and NCV No.209/2016, rejecting the revision petition as well as the application filed by the petitioner, pending trial in Special Court, Negotiable Instruments Act Cases No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is seeking age of the cheque and ink on the cheque through the report of the Foresic Science Laboratory, so as to make out a case that if the cheque is more than three months old, then the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall not apply. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy & Ors., reported in 2008(3) CJ (SC) Cr. 867 as well as by this Court in Bhagwati Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2013(2) NIJ (Raj.) [NOC]. 4. As per the precedent law, the cheque, which was five years old was considered to be a fit case for being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor however, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque are admitted and the date mentioned on the cheque is in accordance with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, then there cannot be any escape from the applicability of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor has cited the precedent law laid down by this Court in Vishnu Kumar v. Sita Ram, reported in 2010 2 Bankmann 568 , wherein it has been laid down that once the petitioner is admitting his signatures upon the cheque, then no error is committed by the learned trial court as well as learned revisional court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert. 7. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the precedent law pertaining to five years old cheques shall not apply in the present case, as at the first instance, while replying the notice or making submissions before the court, the petitioner did not raise any such point, as to whether the cheque was beyond the settled parameters of three or six months, and therefore, was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No such pleadings or submissions were made by the petitioner, while replying the notice or making submissions before the court. Since this is not the original pleading or original stand of the petitioner, therefore, the question would not arise at this stage, whether any kind of determination of the age of the cheque is required. 8. In the present case, the fact of the signatures being admittedly of the petitioner and other parameters, on the face of it appearing to be in conformity with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, deprives the petitioner of his right to get any relief in the present misc. petition. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of.