RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The allegation against these petitioners is that they had used a forged rent receipt allegedly bearing the thumb impression of Mrs. Harbans Kaur, land lady as a genuine document before the officials of. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for issuance of a factory licence for a factory to be run in the premises in their tenancy. The complainant, Mrs. Harbans Kaur had disputed that the thumb impression was not hers. On the basis of these allegations, these petitioners were prosecuted under Sections 420/467/471 IPC. To prove its case the prosecution took the specimen thumb impressions of the complainant and had sent the same for comparison vis-a-vis the thumb impression on the alleged rent receipt to the finger prints division of the CFSL, which submitted the report that the specimen thumb impression and the questioned thumb impression on the rent receipt did not belong to the same person. In defence the petitioners got the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions examined by one Mr. M.S. Walia, handwriting and finger prints expert, who opined that the specimen thumb impression of Mrs. Harbans Kaur and the questioned thumb impression are marked by one and the same person. Since two hand writing experts have given two contradictory opinions on the same facts, so for the proper adjudication of the case the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to arrive at a correct decision directed that the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions be sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for his report.

(2.) . It is this order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6-2-1993 which has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) .Mr. C.M. Sanon, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention towards various decisions of the High Courts as well as that of the Supreme Court reported as Ramdeo Rai vs Mahabir Rai and Ors. [1969 Cri.L.J. (Patna) 90]; State of Mysore vs A.G. Ramaswamy [ 1969 Cri .L.J. (Mysore) 123]; Didar Singh vs. State of Punjab [ 1977 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Punjab & Haryana) 60], Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab [1980 Chandigarh Law Reporter {Punjab & Haryana} 156] and Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs State of Maharashtra [1968 Cri. L J. 231 (Vol.74)] in support of his contention that the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to 540 Cr.P.C. old) cannot reopen investigation to the disadvantage of the accused and that no power has been vested in the Court under this section to take additional evidence. The direction to compare the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions of Smt.Harbans Kaur by the hand writing expert at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh amounts to taking additional evidence and according to him this order is without jurisdiction and illegal.