Delhi District Court
(M/S) Saini Construction Co vs Raj Singh on 22 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CR No. 174/2025
CNR No. DLWT01-004672-2025
Saini Construction Co.
Through its Proprietor
Hawa Singh Saini
WZ-462-C, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi - 110015. ....Revisionist
Versus
Raj Singh
S/o. Govind Singh
R/o. WZ-423, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi - 110015. ....Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 13.05.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 11.11.2025
Date of judgment : 22.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'BNSS') for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-01, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CC No. 5461/2016 titled as Raj Singh v. Saini Construction Co., whereby the application of the revisionist / accused for sending the cheque to FSL for determining the age of ink used in the cheque in question for comparing other particulars on the cheque, was dismissed i.e age of CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 1 / 16 the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the ink used in filling the other particulars of the cheque.
2. The background facts leading to filing of this revision petition as claimed by the revisionist/accused are that the revisionist had given the blank cheque No. 537148 in 2009 to Govind Sunar resident of H. No. 423 Basai Darapur, a goldsmith for security purpose for making a gold item worth Rs. 45,000/-. The revisionist made cash payment to the said Govind Sunar. However, when he demanded his security cheque back, the said Govind Sunar told him that he had kept the cheque elsewhere and he will return the said cheque and he will not misuse the same. It is further submitted that after about seven years, the respondent/complainant, who is the son of Govind Sunar, misused the cheque in question by filling up a huge amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the revisionist had not given the cheque in question to the respondent and that he had no transaction with him.
2.1 The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the revisionist on the said cheque being dishonoured. The revisionist filed an application for obtaining the age of ink used on the cheque for comparing the other particulars of the cheque. However, vide the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application.
CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 2 / 163. The present revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist on the following grounds:
3.1 Ld. Trial Court did not give opportunity to send the said cheque to Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for determination of age of ink of signature and other cheque particulars. The revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, MANU/SC/7523/2008. However, the Ld. Trial Court did not pay attention and did not state anything why this judgment was not applicable.
3.2 When the contention was raised that the complainant has misused the cheque even in a case where there is a presumption under Sections 118 (a) or 139 of the NI Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence to ensure a fair trial.
3.3 Ld. Trial Court wrongly denied the revisionist the opportunity to get scientific evidence. Since the cheque was signed in 2009 and the particulars were filled in 2015, it could be easily proved that the cheque was not given to the complainant by determining the age of the ink.
3.4 Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application without considering CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 3 / 16 the facts and circumstances and without considering the judgment mentioned above and passed the order arbitrarily.
4. In reply to the present revision, it has been submitted by the respondent that the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist with the sole motive to delay the proceeding. In an identical matter titled as Rajbir Singh v. Hawa Singh bearing CC No. 4008/2016, the revisionist aggrieved from the order of the Ld. Trial Court for dismissing a similar application, preferred the revision petition titled as Hawa Singh Saini v. Rajbir Singh bearing CR No. 306/2019. In the said revision petition, the Ld. Sessions Court vide its order dated 16.09.2019 issued the directions to the Director of FSL, Rohini, to inquire as to whether there is a forensic technique by the use of which age of the ink appearing on the document can be ascertained and if yes, whether such technology is available in New Delhi or alternatively, in any other forensic lab in the country.
4.1 In compliance of the said order, reply from the Director of FSL was received in which it was clearly stated that there was no specific technology/technique to express absolute age of the ink in FSL, Delhi. The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2022 with the liberty to the revisionist to get the said cheque examined from FSL, Delhi or from a private lab at his own expenses. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.2022, the cheque in question was sent to the FSL, Rohini for determining the age of ink and other CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 4 / 16 particulars but the same was returned with the remark that the "age of ink facility is not available".
4.2 The respondent has denied that the cheque was given in blank in 2009 to his father Govind Sunar for security purpose for making gold ornaments of Rs.45,000/- which was not returned and allegedly misused by the complainant. There was no trend of giving a blank cheque as security. In the year 2009, the father of the complainant who was a jeweller was bedridden and he was not in a position to manufacture gold ornaments. He had wound up his business in 1992 because of ill health. The revisionist/accused has not approached this Court with clean hands and has filed the present revision petition to delay the proceedings of the Trial Court instituted in 2015 and so the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments addressed by Mr. Mahipal Singh, Ld. counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vikrant Arora, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
6. The case put forth by the revisionist is that respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act in 2015. The allegations against the revisionist/accused is that accused Hawa Singh Saini, Authorized Representative of the accused company issued a cheque dated 21.03.2015 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 5 / 16 Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh in favour of the respondent in discharge of its legal debt/liability towards the respondent. On presentation by the respondent with his banker, the said cheque got dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the legal demand notice was served upon the Authority Representative of the company. However, despite the service of the same, the cheque amount was not paid within the stipulated period of 15 days and accordingly, the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed.
7. As per the Trial Court record notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
was framed against the revisionist/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Ld. counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that he had no objection qua the cross- examination of the complainant and accordingly, the matter was put for cross-examination of the complainant. The matter was put for cross-examination of the complainant on subsequent dates however, the respondent/complainant was not cross-examined. Finally, the complainant/CW-1 was partly cross-examined on 06.01.2020. Thereafter, the matter was again put up for cross-examination of the complainant on many dates and on 28.10.2022, last opportunity was given to the revisionist/accused to cross-examine the complainant. On 01.04.2023, the cross-examination of the complainant was concluded. On 22.05.2023, the statement of the revisionist/accused CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 6 / 16 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he sought to lead defence evidence. It was on 16.10.2024 when DW-2 was discharged that the Ld. counsel for the revisionist sought an opportunity to file an application for sending the cheque in question to FSL. The said application was filed on 18.12.2024 and it was vide impugned order dated 22.05.2025, the said application was dismissed.
8. It is submitted in the application that the revisionist/accused had given the said cheque to one Govind Sunar, a jeweler in blank in 2009 and the respondent/complainant filled his name, amount of Rs.50,000/- and date and deposited in his bank account to grab the amount. The revisionist had written in his cheque book in the counterfoil that the said cheque was given in blank in 2009 to Govind Sunar. It is pleaded in the application that the revisionist/accused had given the cheque in 2009 and the since the respondent misused the said cheque after six years in 2015, hence, it is necessary to send the cheque to FSL for opinion regarding the age of the ink. The revisionist/accused wanted to get the age of ink of the signatures and the handwriting expert opinion on the signatures of the revisionist compared with the handwriting in which name, amount and the date were filled to show that the particulars were filled later in time. The prayer in the application reads:
"It is therefore prayed to this Hon'ble Court be kindly allow the application and be sent to FSL issue direction to take age of ink of cheque No. 537148 signature of accused written on cheque and other body particular of cheque comprise from CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 7 / 16 handwriting expert opinion FSL opinion of signature accused and other body of cheque in question in the interest of justice."
9. In reply to the above said application, it was submitted by the complainant/respondent that the same has been filed only for the purpose of causing delay as the case was filed in 2015. It was also mentioned that the similar matter under Section 138 of NI Act bearing No. CC 4008/2016 was pending before the Court of Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-03 in which the revisionist/accused and the defence counsel are the same and the revisionist/accused filed a similar application which was dismissed by the said Ld. JMFC and a revision petition was filed. While disposing of the said revision petition vide order dated 06.11.2019, it was observed that "in response of the letter written to Director, FSL, letter dated 31.10.2019 has been received from FSL stating that there is no specific technology/technique to express absolute age of the ink in FSL, Delhi. However, there may be possibility to examine the relative age of ink existing on the document if standard age/library of ink record etc. is provided along with the questioned documents." Even after the Ld. ASJ allowed the revision petition and gave liberty to the revisionist to get examined the cheque from FSL, Delhi or examined at his own expense from a private lab, the revisionist/accused moved an application for sending the cheque to CFSL Hyderabad which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2023 CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 8 / 16 by the Ld. JMFC-03 since, the revisionist/accused had already been given the option to get the age of the ink determined from a private lab. The revisionist/accused again filed a revision petition against the said order.
10. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order with regard to the aspect of comparison of signatures/handwriting i.e. that of signatures of the drawer and the handwriting in which the date, name of the payee and the amount is mentioned, has gone by the settled legal position that the law nowhere prescribes that in the case of negotiable instrument the entire body of the instrument shall be written only by the maker/drawer of the instrument. Once the execution is admitted, it shall be presumed that the cheque was issued by the revisionist/accused in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of liability even where the cheque was filled by some other person.
11. The Ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar MANU/SC/7523/2008. In this case, the complainant claimed that he had only signed the cheque and that the particulars of the cheque had been filled by someone else later. The Ld. Trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the NI Act . It was CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 9 / 16 held as under:
"7. When a contention has been raised that the complainant has misused the cheque, even in a case where a presumption can be raised under Section 118(a) or 139 of the said Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on the accused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it. An accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to defend oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognized by the Parliament in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:
Section 243 - Evidence for defence.- (1) ... (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross- examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing:
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice."
12. However, in the abovesaid judgment it was also held that:
8. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court.
It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 10 / 16 to bring on record a relevant material. But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to do so, steps therefor, however, must be taken within a limited time. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protracting the trial or summon witnesses whose evidence would not be at all relevant. (Emphasis added)
13. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in T. Nagappa (supra) as in the present case, the Ld. JMFC did not only reject the application on the ground of Section 20 NI Act but he has also given cogent reasons for it being of no use if the said cheque was sent for age determination of the ink used in the cheque, to the FSL. The impugned order reads:
"1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of accused for sending the cheque to FSL for determining the age of the ink used on the cheque in question and for comparing other particulars on the cheque in question.
2. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the cheque in question was given by the accused to one Govind Sunar in 2009 for security purposes and was not issued to the complainant in 2015. Ld. counsel further submitted that the age of the ink is relevant to determine the fact that the cheque in question was issued in the year 2009 and not in 2015. Ld. Counsel further submitted that it is important to compare the handwriting on the cheque in question as same would show that accused has not filled the particulars on the cheque.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the application on the ground that there is no technology to determine the age of ink and has prayed that application be dismissed.
4. Heard. Record perused.CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 11 / 16
5. The accused has admitted the execution of the cheque in question. In the case of "S. Gopal Vs. D. Palachandran" 2008 (2) RCR (Cr.) 466, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has considered the scope of Section 20 NI Act and held that the law nowhere prescribes that in case of Negotiable Instruments, the entire body of the instrument shall be written only by the maker or drawer of the instrument. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that once the execution is admitted, it shall be presumed that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of liability, even in a case where the cheque was filled by some other person.
6. As far as the contention of determination of age of the ink is concerned, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Yash Pal Vs. Kartar Singh AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344, had observed that the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing if the ink in dispute was manufactured five years prior to the date of execution of the document and used effectively on a particular date for the first time and an expert's opinion as to the age of the ink will not resolve any controversy, but, it will help to create only confusion. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Gopal (Supra) had relied upon the aforementioned observation of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that if an old ink is used by the person, who assisted the drawer who had already put his signature in the cheque to fill up the matter, no useful purpose will be served if such a cheque is analysed by the expert for rendering an opinion.
7. For the reason aforesaid, since the execution of the cheque is admitted, I do not deem it fit for the aforesaid reasons to send the cheque for FSL examination to determine the age of the ink as the same would be irrelevant and the possibility that an old ink might have been used by the person for filling the cheque cannot also be ruled out. For the same reasons, since the execution is admitted, whether the other particulars on the cheque have been filled by the accused or not becomes irrelevant.
8. Accordingly, for the reasons aforementioned, the application filed on behalf of accused for sending the CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 12 / 16 cheque to FSL for determining the age of the ink used on the cheque in question and for comparing other particulars on the cheque in question is dismissed and disposed of."
14. The relevant observation in Yashpal v Kartar Singh AIR 2003 P&H 344, relied upon by the Ld. JMFC, reads as under:
"5. A perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11-2-1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11-2-1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26. Rule 10A of the Code. The basic rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of Justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The revision petition does not disclose any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code."CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 13 / 16
15. On the issue of presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability where the particulars in the cheque are filled by someone else other than the drawer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman MANU/SC/0259/2024, held that:
5. In this regard our attention was drawn to paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 36 of the judgment in Bir Singh, wherein it has been observed that even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the Accused towards some payment would attract the presumption Under Section 139 of the Act and in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good. The said paragraphs are extracted below:
32. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the presumption Under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the Accused and the fact that the cheque might be post-dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear 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.
34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the Accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 14 / 16
36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the Accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
6. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the Accused has signed the cheque. The only dispute is with regard to the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque.
7. We find that the application filed by the Accused before the trial Court was wholly frivolous and that the trial Court had rightly rejected the said application.
But in our view, the High Court ought not to have allowed the said application and thereby allowed the revision petition of the Respondent-Accused.
8. In the circumstances, we place reliance on the aforesaid judgment of this Court and allow this appeal and thereby set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the learned Magistrate Court is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible."
(Emphasis added)
16. What the Ld. JMFC had to see was whether such scientific investigation of age determination of the ink, was going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating the case. The observation in the above cases brings out that whether 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 and that where an old ink is used for the purpose of filling the particulars of the cheque, no useful purpose will be served if such cheque is analysed by the expert. In the present facts and circumstances, when the execution of the cheque has already been admitted, it was rightly held by Ld. CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 15 / 16 JMFC that there was no reason to send the cheque for FSL examination to determine the age of the ink. Any which way, the possibility of an old ink being used either for signing or filling the particulars of the said cheque cannot be ruled out by the FSL examination. For the above said reasons, the application filed on behalf of the revisionist/accused for sending the cheque to FSL for determining the age of the ink used on the cheque in question for comparing the age of ink of the signature with the age of ink of other particulars on the cheque, was rightly dismissed.
17. In the light of the above observations, I find no infirmity in the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-01, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CC No. 5461/2016 titled as Raj Singh v. Saini Construction Co. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by ADITI
ADITI CHOUDHARY
Announced in the open Court CHOUDHARY Date:
on 22nd day of November, 2025 2025.11.22
17:35:25 +0530
(Dr. Aditi Choudhary)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
West : Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
CR No. 174/2025 Saini Construction Co. v. Raj Singh Page No. 16 / 16