SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana remanding the case to the trial Magistrate for retrial after permitting the prosecutor to tender in evidence the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, warrants no interference in revision. The sole ground for challenge being the prolonged trial and delay in the completion of the proceedings against the petitioner and consequent expense and harassment caused to the petitioner thereby.

(2.) In November, 1976, the petitioner Surinder Singh was posted as Salesmen at the Petrol Deposit Sudhar of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation. It is said that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 507 litres of petrol and 383 litres of high speed diesel and thereby misappropriated the cost thereof which was Rs. 37,375.59 Paise. According to the prosecution, the modus operan of the petitioner was that he would forage the pay in slips of the State Bank of Patiala and put thereon the fabricated steal of the Bank to show thereby that the amounts sent through him for deposit to the Bank had in fact ben depsited whereas in fact this amount was never deposited. The pay in slips were shown to have been signed by the cashier of the Bank Gurnam Singh. The specimen signatures of the said Gurnam Singh were compared by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh with his purported signatures on the pay to in slips as also the specimen writing of the petitioner Surinder Singh with the writing son these pay to in slips. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the signatures on the pay in slips were not those of said Gurnam Singh while the writing on it was of the petitioner Surinder Singh.

(3.) During the trial of the case against the petitioner the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was placed on record but it was never formally tendered in evidence. It was after the defence evidence had been closed that an application was filed by the prosecution that this report may be allowed to be tendered in evidence. The trial Magistrate declined this application on the ground of delay but at the same time also observed that the report was admissible per se under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.