GOVIND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders dated 4-4-2001 and 17-4-2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sihora in Sessions Trial No. 103/95.

(2.) THE facts of this case disclose that the relevant FSL reports of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar were filed on 1-8-2000. The were not the originals but were alleged certified copies. Copies of the FSL reported were given to the counsel for the accused persons. No application under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short "the Act") was filed on that date. Therefore, it was not known to the accused person on 1 -8-2000 if the prosecution wanted to examine the scientific expert who made the reports for proving the copies. It is on 4-9-2000 an application under Section 79 of the Act for exhibiting the alleged certified copies of the FSL reports was filed. The learned Trial Judge accepted the two reports of FSL, Sagar stating that these certified copies are tendered under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr. PC") and they be marked as Exs. P-27 and P-28. Thereafter the learned Trial Judge went on, and on 4-4-2001 the learned Trial Judge decided the application dated 16-12-2000. In that application dated 16-12-2000 it was claimed by the applicant that the copy of the application under Section 79 of the Act was not given to the accused person and the exhibits were marked without giving the accused person an opportunity to controvert the application under Section 79 of the Act. The view of the learned Trial Judge was that the order dated 4-9-2000 marking the aforesaid documents was passed in presence of the counsel and therefore he found that there was no propriety in reopening the order when the Court had found that these documents were not of suspicious character. The application was rejected. Thereafter the application filed by the accused person for examination of the officer who made the report of the FSL was also rejected by the impugned order dated 17-4-2001. The concerned officer P. N. Bhavodia was sought to be examined by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant states that so far as Satyendra Kumar was concerned, no prayer was made but the learned Trial Judge wrongly thought that the applicant wanted to examine him.

(3.) THE only question that has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant in this case is that under Section 293 of Cr. PC, the original report of scientific expert mentioned in that Section is acceptable as the evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. It is argued that an alleged certified copy is not an evidence under the Act.