RINKU ALIAS YATENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the petitioneraccused is directed against an order dated 10 th February 2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 114/2005 by the Seventh Addl. Sessions Judge Gwalior (M.P.) refusing thereby prayer of the petitioner/accused for getting the disputed handwritings of Ex.P/2, P/3 and P/4 compared by a Handwriting Expert with the words or figures alleged to have been made by such person.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the petitioner/accused in the present case is facing prosecution for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel that on receiving information about the commission of alleged offence, the ASI O.P. Yadav rushed to the spot and reduced in writing the Dehati Nalishi and Marg, marked as Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/2. On the basis of the aforesaid, an FIR was written by Ramlakhan (PW-2) at police station which is marked as Ex.P/3. It is alleged that all these reports have been written by the same person and with a view to prove this fact the accused prayed for calling services of the Handwriting Expert to bring out the truth in the prosecution case, but unfortunately, his prayer was rejected by the trial court under the impugned order. Therefore, by filing the instant revision it is prayed that the same may be allowed in the interest of justice in order to establish defence and false implication by the accused after examination by the Handwriting Expert. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Delhi Vs. Patiram, 1979 AIR(SC) 14, State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukh Dev Singh, 1992 AIR(SC) 2100, Ajeet Sawant Vs. State of Karnataka, 1997 7 SCC 110.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, opposed the prayer of the petitioner/accused and supported the impugned order passed by the trial court. He, therefore, requested to dismiss the revision petition.