RETNAKUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the stage of defence evidence in a criminal trial, the accused filed an application in the trial court praying for forwarding a document to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its expert opinion on a certain aspect. But the trial court dismissed the application by the impugned order. The accused has, therefore, filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ?the Code?) for quashing the order.

(2.) PROSECUTION proceedings against the petitioner/ accused were initiated when the Registrar of the High Court filed a complaint against him in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate alleging that the accused produced before the High Court a forged document purporting to be a bank guarantee. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged and the trial proceeded against the petitioner upto defence evi-dence stage. Petitioner then filed an application in the trial court praying that the questioned document (which has been marked as Ex.P-10 in the trial court) may be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with another document (which is said to be the verification report submitted to the same bank) for ascertaining whether both documents were type-written on the same typewriter. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while dismissing the application, has stated as follows: ?The company may manufacture more than one typewriter having identical letters. The similarity of the letters by itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that it was typed in the very same typewriter. As contended by learned Public Prosecutor no useful purpose will be served by sending these two documents, I do not find any reason to allow the request of the petitioner?.

(3.) IT is not provided anywhere in Chapter XIX of the Code that the accused can apply for sending any document or article for expert examination at the stage when he is called upon to enter on his defence. Even under Chapter XXI of the Code which deals with "general provisions as to enquiries or trial" no provision enabling; the court to make such investigation is envisaged. At the same time there is no restriction for the accused obtaining any expert opinion for the purpose of bringing in evidence. If he succeeds in securing a favourable opinion from any expert on any matter relevant for his defence, he can certainly request the court to summon him. But that aspect is qualitatively different from seeking the help of the court, during defence evidence stage, to conduct investigation to ascertain as to what the expert would say on such matter.