NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI Vs. ROHIT SHEKHAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cav. No. 772/2012.

(2.) BY means of this appeal, the appellant questions the propriety and legality of orders dated 20th July, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 10325/2012. In that application which was filed by the appellant herein, he had sought a protection that the DNA report received by the Court on 2nd July, 2012 be kept sealed and confidential till the conclusion of the entire trial. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said application inter alia observing that orders dated 24th May, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17622/2012 on which reliance was placed by the appellant, do not accord any such protection. Without narrating the events which have taken place, in detail, suffice is to state that the learned Single Judge had on earlier occasion in the said suit passed directions for obtaining the blood sample of the defendant No. 1/appellant for the purpose of DNA test. That order has since been executed after the matter was taken up to Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. The blood sample of the appellant was sent to the Centre for DNA Finger Print and Diagnostic (CDFD) at Hyderabad for analysis. The report from the said Centre has since been received and is filed in this Court in sealed cover. It is that report which the appellant does not want to be opened at this stage and had made a prayer that the same should be kept sealed and confidential "till the conclusion of the entire trial". In the first instance, as we read the aforesaid order dated 24th May, 2012 of the Supreme Court, we are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that this order nowhere states that once the test of DNA profile is obtained from the CDFD, same shall be kept in sealed cover till the conclusion of the entire trial. The only mandate was to obtain the report of the analyst through a special messenger in a sealed cover by the officer of this Court. This DNA report, admittedly, is now a piece of evidence. The issues have been framed and evidence in the suit has started. Defendant No. 2 in the suit, who is the mother of the plaintiff, is under examination. In order to regulate the proceedings and curtail unnecessary cross -examination as well, it becomes imperative that the result of the said DNA is even known to the defendant No. 2. Section 153B of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:

(3.) WE may also record that the purpose of obtaining the aforesaid DNA report was to cut short the controversy and to avoid unnecessary prolonged trial. If the evidence is not opened now, it may lead to unnecessary lengthy cross -examination of the witnesses which can otherwise be avoided and/or curtailed. We would also like to refer to Section 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was amended vide Amendment Act of 1976 and has enabled the Court to issue commissions to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation. The purpose of this amendment is to keep pace with scientific advancement in the matters of judicial adjudication and wherever possible, to avoid age old practices and procedures when new better methods are available. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.