BALRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 15/11/2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungwali, District Ashoknagar, whereby application under Sec. 243 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the cases are that the petitioner is facing charge under Ss. 302, 307, 201, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Sec. 25/27 of the Arms Act before the trial Court. Evidence of prosecution has been concluded and thereafter, at the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 243 of Cr.P.C. for issuance of process for ensuring the attendance of the defence witness i.e. handwriting expert, who prepared the report in connection with the memo (Ex.P/29) and seizure memo (Ex.P/30) allegedly signed by the petitioner, but handwriting expert gave opinion otherwise. According to him, those documents have not been signed by one and the same person who signed comparative signature and on documents marked as A-1 to A-20. The petitioner wants to call the said handwriting expert in support of his defence. The trial Court dismissed the said application, therefore, the petitioner preferred this petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the petition.