UDDHAV PANDURANG ADHAU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties.

(2.) REVISIONAL order dated 24.6.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2007 and 33 of 2007 below Ex.33 confirming the order passed by J.M.F.C. Telhara in Criminal Case Nos.1513 of 2004 and 1514 of 2004 is under challenge in the present criminal applications.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned orders and having heard learned counsel for rival parties, I do find substance in what the learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits. But fact remains that applicant is an accused and as per the prevalent criminal jurisprudence the accused has to be given all sorts of opportunities, ofcourse subject to relevancy. In the instant case, looking to the defence of the applicant it is relevant to have the age of the ink determined by the expert at the costs of the applicants in both the cases. The decision of Supreme Court to allow the accused to have such an opinion in ordinary course has to be given effect to. Whether or not the same ultimately leads to confusion is a matter to be decided at the trial after receipt of expert's report. It would, therefore, be premature at this stage to say that any such report received would lead to confusion. For all the above reasons, I make the following order.