LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-178

MOHD. ILYAS Vs. SHAHBUDIN

Decided On March 10, 1998
MOHD. ILYAS Appellant
V/S
Shahbudin Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a criminal revision and a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Baldev Singh that the present revision has been directed against the order dated 2.12.1997, vide which the application of the accused u/s 311, Cr.P.C. was allowed and against such type of orders, a revision is not maintainable. I fully agree with the preliminary submission raised by the counsel for the respondents.

(2.) FACED with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be treated as a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, I treat this petition to be u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, invites my attention to the judgement in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, 1996 SCC (Crl.) 1104, where their Lordships were pleased to hold that the court is not debarred from looking into any material produced by the accused at that stage and the hearing of the case cannot be allowed to be confined to oral arguments. Mr. Baldev Singh submits that in order to prove that there was no prima facie, case, the assistance of the court was taken for calling the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, which Laboratory may not be in a position to give the assistance to a private individual and the allowing of the application, in fact, does not amount to summoning or leading additional evidence. I fully endorse the view and submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Present is a case in which it cannot be said that the accused wanted to lead evidence before pre-charge stage. The only request of the respondents before the Magistrate was that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory be called on the questioned documents and after obtaining the report, an opinion may be formulated whether any prima facie, case existed or not. It does not tantamount to leading of the evidence.