PRAVINKUMAR LALCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the trial of a criminal case wherein the question of handwriting is involved whether the accused are entitled to the copies of the enlarged photographs from the prosecution under the provisions of sec. 173(5) and sec. 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which is involved in all these Misc. Criminal Applications.

(2.) The accused the present applicants are being prosecuted before the Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under secs. 467 471 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the handwriting expert because the hand- writing expert had given opinion about the handwritings of the Court accused. At the trial stage the applicants made a request to the Court that because they are not supplied with the enlarged photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures it would not be possible for them to prepare their defence properly was also mentioned that the accused Wanted to take help of private handwriting expert to prepare the defence and also to find out whether the alleged handwriting were forged and also with the help of the private handwriting expert if necessary to cross-examine the State handwriting expert. These applica- tions were mainly given on the strength of the provisions contained in sec. 273 and sec. 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To put it in a nutshell by the orders of the Trial Court it can be said that these applications were rejected on the ground that the enlarged photographs are not covered under the documents which are to be supplied under the provisions of the aforesaid two sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was also. canvassed before the learned Magistrate that the pro- secution did not rely on the enlarged photographs but they merely relied on the opinion the report and the reasons given by the handwriting expert and the copy of the opinion and the reasons are already supplied to the accused. It was also submitted that as the prosecution did not have the copies of the enlarged photographs with them and as they did not want to produce them in the Court the accused could not ask for the enlarged photographs. It was also submitted that if the accused wanted they could take the photographs from the documents produced in the Court and obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert to prepare for the proper defence. All these arguments weighed with the learned Magistrate and he rejected the applications and therefore the applicants have come to this Court.

(3.) So far as the first two matters that is Misc. Criminal Applica- tions No. 689 of 1981 and 757 of 1981 are concerned as this point involved the consideration of the judgment of this Court in 12 G.L.R. 167 in the case of Himatlal Ratilal Rajyagor v. State decided by Justice N. G. Shelat as he then was our learned brother Nanavati J. referred these two matters to Division Bench. We were told that there was another matter i.e. Misc. Criminal Application No. 812 of 1981 pending in this Court and therefore that is also called before us and we are hearing it. As the point involved is of considerable importance a notice was sent to the Bar Association so that anybody wanting to intervene and assist the Court in deciding the question might have an opportunity to do so. So on behalf of the applicants in these matters learned advocates Messrs. D. C. Trivedi D. D. Vyas and B.C. Patel have appeared while Messrs D. K. Shah N. C. Laheri and A. K. Mankad have appeared as interveners to assist the Court. On behalf of the State learned Public Prosecutors Messrs. M. B. Shah and J. M. Panchal have argued the matter.