DUNCAN GLEN SMITH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the passing of order dated 18.8.2018, whereby learned Special Judge-II Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., dismissed the application having been filed by the petitioner accused (herein after referred to as the accused), praying therein for sending the sample seal Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, for comparison of the signature of the accused to some expert, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC.

(2.) Accused, who is behind bars since 18.3.2017, in case FIR No. 47/2017, dated 18.3.2017, under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act registered at PS Kullu, H.P., filed an application in the court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., praying therein for sending the sample seal Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, for comparison of his signatures to some expert. He averred in the application that during trial, it transpired that sample seal Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, is not signed by him, whereas I.O. in his statement recorded before the court below, claimed that accused had appended his signature on the sample seal. Accused, also claimed before the court below that Investigating Officer pressurized him to append his signature on Ext.PW7/B, in the police station. In the aforesaid background, accused prayed before the court below that for fair and just adjudication of the case, comparison of signature of the accused on the sample seal Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, by an expert is necessary. Apart from above, accused also denied his signature upon Ext.PW7/B, while getting his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC.

(3.) Aforesaid application came to be resisted and contested by the respondent-State, by way of written reply, wherein it specifically denied that signatures of the accused, were obtained by the Investigating Officer on the memo Ext.PW7/C, under coercion. Respondent claimed that signatures of the accused were obtained by the Investigating Officer on sample seal taken on separate piece of cloth on spot after sealing the contraband. Respondent also claimed that application has been moved at a belated stage to protract the trial and as such, there is no necessity for sending the signatures of the accused to the expert. Moreover, both the memos were signed by the accused at that relevant time on the spot.