RAUNAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is not present. The petitioners are also not present. They were called absent.

(2.) THE petitioners filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.11.1993 in C.C. No. 3 dated 15.1.1993. The petitioners were prosecuted under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution closed its evidence. The petitioners were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and have been asked to lead the evidence in defence. They examined Gopal Krishan Sharma, Handwriting Expert, in support of their defence. He submitted an application in which he stated that he was summoned twice. He stated in the court that he was not told as to on which aspect he has to give the evidence and he has not been supplied any document or handwriting or any disputed signatures for his opinion and no material was supplied to him for comparison.

(3.) IT is for their defence, the petitioners summoned Gopal Krishan Sharma, the Handwriting Expert. When he says that he has not examined or compared any document and no documents were supplied to him for comparison, there is no question of his evidence being taken. The petitioners have not even alleged in their grounds of revision that the said expert namely Gopal Krishan Sharma compared any document or gave his opinion at any stage of the proceedings or even before the proceedings either at the instance of the prosecution or at the instance of the accused, further Gopal Krishan Sharma has filed an application that he has not given any opinion earlier and for giving an opinion he required photographs of the disputed and specimen signatures for comparison and for preparing the report and taking photographs and typing etc. a huge amount was required.