SARDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been laid to order dated 13.6.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, passed in Cr. Misc. Application No. 122 of 2017 in Session Trial No. 57 of 2015, whereby application having been preferred by the respondent-State under Section 311 of the Cr.PC., came to be allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that an application under Section 311 of the Cr.PC came to be filed on behalf of respondent-State in Session trial No. 57 of 2015, wherein prayer was made to the Court below to summon Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, Deputy Director, RFSL as a witness.

(3.) Perusal of the averments contained in the application (Annexure P1) having been filed by the respondent-State suggests that certain disputed/questioned signatures and handwritings of both the accused along with their specimen signatures and hand writings, were sent to RFSL Dharamshala, for comparison of signatures and hand writing. Report received from the RFSL Dharamshala under the hand and signature of Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, Deputy Director, RFSL, was placed on record and marked as Ext. PX. In the application referred above, respondent averred that though, as per provisions of Section 293 of the Cr.PC, reports under the hand of government scientific expert are per-se admissible, but comparison of hand writing is not covered under this provision and as such, Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, Deputy Director, RFSL, is required to be summoned and examined qua the correctness of aforesaid document placed on record in the form of Ext.PX. Respondent further averred in the application that the evidence of hand writing expert namely Ms. Meenakshi Mahajan, is very much relevant for the just decision of the case and her examination will not cause any prejudice to the accused, rather, it would help the court below to adjudicate the matter in just and fair manner. Respondent further submitted that the factum with regard to the requirement of examination of aforesaid hand writing expert only came to the notice of the prosecution while preparing the facts of the arguments. Respondent further stated that nonexamination of aforesaid material witness is neither intentional nor deliberate but inadvertently, her name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses.