M. RAMESHAN Vs. BABY RAMANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short contention which falls within the ambit of consideration of this court while exercising the jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner's objection raised against marking of Ext. C1 report of DNA examination by the expert, was ignored and the same was marked without opportunity to the petitioner to challenge such evidence. The decision in Geetha v. State of Kerala, 2005 (2) KLT 407 : 2005 (2)KLD (Cri) 382 : 2005 KHC 585 : 2005 (2) KLJ 138 : ILR 2005 (3) Ker. 33 according to me concludes the question. In Crl. M. C. 501 of 2003 the order of maintenance granted to the claimant/child is challenged. Crl. M. C. 3127 of 2004 is an application to stay further proceedings in Crl. M. C. 61 of 2004 for enhancement of the maintenance awarded as per the order impugned in Crl. M. C. 501 of 2003.I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dictum in Geetha is not sound and deserves to be referred to a larger bench. I find no reason to justify the contention that the dictum therein requires reconsideration by reference to a Division Bench. In the facts of this case such reference appears to be not necessary.

(2.) UNDAUNTED , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least under S.293(2) Cr.P.C, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to test the acceptability of the opinion tendered by the expert in Ext. C1. I have no doubt that he should have taken the necessary steps before the learned Magistrate. But the counsel submits that the petitioner is in very poor financial position and is unable to afford the huge amount that is required to examine the expert. The expert has demanded unconscionable amounts as batta for appearance before the court. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at any rate, even assuming the document to be admissible under S.293 Cr.P.C, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to get the expert examined and test his evidence by a cross examination. The counsel submits that in as much as the petitioner is unable to afford the expenditure, the claimant may be directed to examine the witness or the witness may be examined as a court witness.

(3.) IN the result, a) These petitions are allowed on the following terms and conditions.