S CHIMPIRAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which arises in this revision application whether while there are no direct witnesses, and when the record before the inquiry Magistrate includes also the alleged account books said to have been forged by the accused the Magistrate cannot proceed with the inquiry without examining the Finger Print Expert, when especially the. accused makes an application under Section 510 (2) Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) In this enquiry pending before the Judicial 2nd class Magistrate, Ongole, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II did not want to examine the Finger Print Expert, But the accused filed a petition under Section. 510 (2) Crl. P. C., for summoning the Expert. The Magistrate took the view that the report of the Finger Print Expert is not marked as evidence at that stage in the inquiry, but was only included in the record like any other document filed along with the charge sheet. He therefore dismissed the application of the accused as He felt that it is not necessary at that stage to summon the Expert. This order was taken in Revision before the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The Sessions Court also found that it was not necessary that it should be proved before the committing Magistrate that the document was forged and that there will he occasions before the trial Court for marking the document and taking evidence. He held that though Sub-section 2 of Section 510 Cr. P. C. is mandatory and that on the application of the prosecution or the accused the Court has to summon and examine the Expert as to the subject matter of the report, it is not necessary to do so at the stage of inquiry.

(3.) In this revision application, before dealing with the various contentions of Mr. T. V. Sarma. that based upon Section 510 (2) Cr. P. C., may be first referred to.