PARVEEN DOGRA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioners, who are standing trial in the court of learned Special Judge-II, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act'), are aggrieved by an order dated 1.12.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge allowing the prayer of the prosecution under Section 311 read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for sending the second part of the sample and bulk of the recovered contraband for analyses to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Precisely the prayer in this regard is based on the averment that though one part of the sample was sent for analyses and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has been received, yet in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and the connected matters,2012 2 HimLR 837, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the second part of the sample and the bulk of the recovered contraband are also sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the precedent of law, supra, relied upon by the learned trial court applies to the appellate stage and would not come into play, when the matter is still at the trial stage. However, the contention on the face of it appears to have been raised simply to be rejected. The power of a court to grant permission to lead additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. includes both relating to a witness as also reports such as report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is per se admissible in evidence and if disputed, is required to be proved by the person submitting the report, in case a prayer to this effect is made by the accused and would thus fall within the purview of Section 311 Cr.P.C. The contention that the judgment referred to hereinabove applies only to a case which is at the appellate stage and not to one that is still at the initial stage of trial, is also equally fallacious, as the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by any "any court", "at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."

(3.) In view of the above, the petition is disposed of being without any merit. In view of disposal of the main petition, Cr. MP No. 15 of 2013 shall also stand disposed of.