JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing the Order dtd. 20/1/2020, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise offences, Nellore[Hereinafter, trial court"] in Crl. M.P. No.9 of 2020 in C.C.No.282 of 2016, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner/accused for sending the cheque in question to the expert, for determination of age of the ink, has been dismissed. Procedural History 2. The petitioner herein was the accused and the Respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. 3. The petitioner is facing trial in a private complaint, filed by the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881[Hereinafter, "N.I. Act"]. After submitting written arguments on behalf of both parties, petitioner moved an application for sending the cheque in question to an expert, for the purpose of determining the age of the writing in terms of the signature. The petitioner's stand for such a plea is that cheque and promissory note were procured by his brother-in-law relating to his contract work at Madhya Pradesh in the year 2007 and have been misused by him, through the complainant in the year 2012. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strengths his arguments on the grounds that the cheque and promissory note in question were in the year 2007, to the brother-in-law of the petitioner i.e., Ravipati Venkateswarlu, who worked under him at Katni District of Madhya Pradesh. During that time, the petitioner handed over this document for the purpose of contract in his absence. He submits that they were later manipulated in the year 2012, by filling in the body of the cheque. He would submit that the determination of age of the signature is essential for the just decision of the case by providing an opportunity of rebuttal, in light of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act., which operates on the proof of foundational fact, in favour of the complainant. Learned Counsel would urge that his application was wrongfully dismissed and prays for indulgence of the Court. 5. Learned Counsel would urge that his application was wrongfully dismissed and prays for indulgence of the Court. 5. Refuting the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that for the first time in Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination, accused has introduced the story that he has signed on the cheque in the year 2007, but it was manipulated in the year 2012, by his brother in law through the complainant. He submitted that it was not even suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that he signed on the cheque in the year 2007, but not in 2012. He would urge that, the opinion of an expert relating to determination of the age is not a perfect science and that there are no scientific methods available for accurate assessment of the age of the ink and writing. He would finally submit that the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the petition, since the application has been filed at the fag end when the matter reached at the stage of judgment only to drag the proceedings. Consequently, it is submitted that the Petition deserves dismissal. Point for Determination 6. Heard Sri Venkata Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Eathakota Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record. 7. The short point that arises for determination is as follows; Whether the Order dtd. 20/1/2020 passed by the trial court dismissing the application to send the cheque in question for determination of age of ink to an expert warrants any interference of this Court or not? Determination by the Court 8. This is not a case, where the petitioner denies his signature on the cheque as well as promissory note. His case is that he signed on a blank promissory note and cheque and gave it to his brother-in-law one Ravipati Venkateswarlu, in connection with his contract work at Madhya Pradesh in the year 2007, later they were misused by his brother in law, in view of the dispute arose between them and he got filed the complaint through the complainant. In clear terms, the only purpose for which, the petitioner wants to send the subject document for examination by the expert is to show that the age of the ink was nearly 5 years old. 9. In clear terms, the only purpose for which, the petitioner wants to send the subject document for examination by the expert is to show that the age of the ink was nearly 5 years old. 9. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabadin Mr. Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Mr. Numburu Mohan Rao, 2018 (6) ALD 751 . wherein it was held in the following lines; "16. As referred in Rajalingam supra it is crystal clear of Para 4 of Inayathulla supra speaks referring in Jagadeesan supra of there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai where the facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made and that is also a Central Government Organization. 17. Once such is the case, the facility available and the expert is also available. Thus there is no meaning in arguing of no practical use or purpose or sending to determine age of the ink is a futile exercise." 10. In response, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Surabhi Kishan Rao v. Bejjanki Indira, AIR 2020 Telangana 15. which held as follows; "8. As compared to the decisions Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai (1 supra) and Namineni Audi Seshaiah (2 supra), I am of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court referred in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (3 supra) as well as reasoning in judgment in Kambala Nageswara Rao (4 supra) are more persuasive; and that the chemical tests to determine age appear to be a mere excuse to make a guess and would not furnish any reliable data upon which a definite opinion can be based. There is also confusion created by the date when the ink used in the pen to make the handwriting was manufactured and the gap between the dates of manufacture of the ink of writing on a document using the said ink. 9. The trial Court has rightly followed the decision in Kambala Nageswara Rao (4 supra) and declined relief to the petitioner. " 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision rendered in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakar Reddy, 2017 SCC Online Hyd 74. 9. The trial Court has rightly followed the decision in Kambala Nageswara Rao (4 supra) and declined relief to the petitioner. " 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision rendered in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakar Reddy, 2017 SCC Online Hyd 74. where exhaustive analysis was undertaken on the point of reference to expert for determination of age of the ink in the following lines; "15. It is an admitted fact that the science relating to forensic examination of Handwriting, especially in relation to the fixation of the age of the ink, is not perfect. In cases of this nature any reference of a document to the Handwriting Expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the ink was 5 years old at the time of institution of the suit or 3 years old at the time of institution of the suit, is not likely to bring any fruitful result. Interestingly in one of the books relied upon by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, namely Handwriting Forensics by B.R. Sharma, Chapter 25 contains a Glossary under the title Documenpaedia. In the said chapter, there is an interesting portion relating to INK AGE. This portion reads as follows: INK AGE: Age of the writing can sometime be given in relative terms. Upkeep of the document plays an important role. Ink has been extensively studied to fix the age of the documents. There are two aspects which have been explored. The compositions of inks in common usage have been changing continuously. It was the carbon ink (known as Indian Ink) to start with. It changed to irontannin inks, then to water-soluble dye inks and later to organic solvent inks as for ball pens. New dye inks are coming up continuously. Thin Layer Chromatography (LTC) can easily identify the ink dye even from an ink line without visibly damaging the writing line. High Performance TLC gives better results. The date of induction of a particular ink, therefore can be ascertained with the help of its manufacturer. If a document is purported to be written prior to its induction of the ink, it is obviously false. In some countries data relating to induction of various inks is kept for ready reference. Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing. If a document is purported to be written prior to its induction of the ink, it is obviously false. In some countries data relating to induction of various inks is kept for ready reference. Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing. Inks diffuse in the paper. The extent of diffusion may give some guess about the age of writing. Iron inks become darker in colour with age. The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing. In some countries age marker chemicals, usually radioactive materials, are added to the ink. They indicate the age of the writing. Fresh ink is easily smudged. Older inks do not smudge easily. The ease of smudging may give a rough estimate of the age of the writing. The methods listed above look impressive. But in practice it is seldom that correct age of the document can be determined as there are many variables which affect the changes in the ink. Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India." 12. The view taken in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru was that it would be of any practical purpose to refer for the purpose of determination of age of the ink, when the time gap is around 30 to 40 years, and not when the gap pleaded is just about 4 years. 13. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with a similar plea in Ved Parkash Doda v. Jaspal[CRM-M-3468-2016, High Court of Punjab-Haryana, dtd. 10/12/2019] in identical factual circumstances as in the instant case, where a plea to send a disputed cheque for determination of age of the ink was made. The Court having referred a catena of decisions held as follows; "In Sudarshan Kumar vs. Manish Manchanda 2015 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 886, it has been held as under: "5. As per the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is alleged that the cheques in question have been manipulated later on by filling in the necessary particulars in the body of the cheques. He has pleaded that the cheques in question should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the age of the ink used to fill in the necessary particulars in the body of the cheques. He has pleaded that the cheques in question should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the age of the ink used to fill in the necessary particulars in the body of the cheques. But in my opinion, it is not possible for a document expert to give any definite opinion about the age of the ink as it is not known in which year the ink used to write the document was manufactured. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Union of India Vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1971 SC 1093 , elaborately dealt with this issue and laid down as 2 of 4 CRM-M-3468-2016 under :- "10. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949, 1950 and 1959, and requested the Director to determine the age of the writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by comparison. The Director on April 17, 1965 wrote that it "was impossible to give any definite opinion by such comparisons particularly when the comparison writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and not stored under the same conditions as the documents under examination", and that it "will not be possible for a document expert, however reputed he might be, anywhere in the world, to give any definite opinion on the probable date of the horoscope and the ink writing in the margin of the almanac". 6. This Court in case Yash Pal Vs. Kartar Singh, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 701, has also laid down that expert opinion to check the age of ink cannot help to determine the date of writing of the document as the ink used in the writing of the document may have been manufactured years earlier. 7. In case Tarsem Singh Vs. Ravinder Singh 2014 (11) RCR (Civil) 2112, this Court has again reiterated that there is no scientific method available for determine the age of the ink. In case S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 466, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken the same view and laid down that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy. The same legal position has been reiterated in cases R. Dennis Raja Vs. In case S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 466, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken the same view and laid down that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy. The same legal position has been reiterated in cases R. Dennis Raja Vs. T. Subbiah 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 212, K. Vaiavan Vs. Selvaraj 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 942 and Vinod Maroti Vs. Jitendra" 14. Placing reliance on the decisions supra, the High Court in Ved Parkash Doda (supra)held that as there cannot be any definite opinion regarding the age of ink in view of the decision rendered in Jyothi Prakash Mitter (supra) by a Constitutional Bench. 15. Similarly, Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhanev. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande, 2023:BHC-NAG:16138. the High Court of Bombay was also posed with an identical question, wherein a cheque was signed in 2010 and allegedly filled up on or after 2016. An application to appoint expert for ink age test of the disputed cheque was brought on its legal journey from the Magistrate Court till the High Court under Sec. 482. The High Court agreed with the contention against the application for ink age test, backed by reliance on Manish Singh v. Jeetendra Meera, Misc. Petition No. 3093/2018. in which the decision of Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1971 SC 1093 . was referred to opine that there is no mechanism in place to determine the ink age. 16. The Bombay High Court also referred to the judgment of Madras High Court in Kanagaraj v. Ramamoorthy, C.R.P. (MD) No.601/2021 and C.M.P. (MD) No.3344/2021. wherein R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyaswamy, 2010(1) CTC 424 . was reiterated. In the latter decision, vide paras 7 to 9, an expert in the field of Forensic Science submitted that "Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, " an institute with facility to find proximate range of time during which writing is made, would not offer apt opinion and that this facility was restricted only to atomic research and not in cases of litigation and prosecution. 17. In that view of matter, in backdrop of consistent decisions laid down, particularly the judgment of Constitutional Bench in Jyothi Prakash Mittar (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which warrants interference of this Court. 17. In that view of matter, in backdrop of consistent decisions laid down, particularly the judgment of Constitutional Bench in Jyothi Prakash Mittar (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which warrants interference of this Court. More so, this Court also feels that the expert opinion on ink age cannot be of any help in determining the date of its writingas the writing could be made at one time and the ink may have been manufactured years earlier. On this premise, this Court agrees with the proposition laid down in Surabhi Kishan Rao (supra). 18. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as the Calendar case is of the year 2016, learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, not later than one (01) month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.