PINNINTI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No. 6 in C.C.No. 268 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram filed this criminal revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2003 made in Criminal M.P.No. 4028 of 2003 in CC 268 of 2001 of the said court. By the said order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the Public Prosecutor filed under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to receive the opinion of the Expert in evidence by summoning the Expert as a witness on behalf of the prosecution.

(2.) Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application in Criminal M.P.No. 4028 of 2003 stating that at the time of examination, the Investigating officer stated that he obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of the mediators and sent the signatures for Expert's opinion, who compared the signatures and gave his opinion. But by mistake, the Expert was not cited as a witness. Though the name of Expert was referred in the charge-sheet, but before receiving the Expert's opinion, the charge-sheet was filed and as such, it is necessary to examine the Expert and also to mark the Expert's opinion to prove the guilt of the accused. In the charge-sheet it is stated as follows:

(3.) Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid charge-sheet that the Investigating Officer obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of the mediators and sent the signature and thumb mark to the Expert for his opinion, who compared the signature and thumb mark and gave his opinion. But by mistake, the Expert was not cited as a witness, though his name was referred in the charge-sheet and charge-sheet was filed before receiving the Expert's opinion. As such it is stated that it is necessary to examine the expert and also to mark his opinion to prove the guilt of the accused. It is stated that the expert's opinion is relevant for considering the case of the prosecution and as such the document can be received by summoning the expert.