Ghanshyam Prasad, J.

1. This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.d has been filed to awash the order dated 21.1.2006 as well as dated 8.3.2006 passed by Fast Track Court No. 1, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1990. Vide order dated 21.1.2006, the court below has allowed the petition dated 22.9.2004 of the prosecution and has marked report of the Director Police Laboratory, C.I.D,, Patna as Ext.4. Vide order dated 8.3.2006. the lower court has rejected the petition of the petitioners filed under Sections 311 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. as well as petition for sending the letter (Ext.2/C) to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or examination.

2. Heard.

3. On perusal of the order dated 21.1.2006, it appears that the court below has marked report of the Director. C.I.D., patna as Ext.4 holding it as public document. He has relied upon a decision of the apex court reported in 1975 S.C.905 (Phool Kumar V/s. Delhi Administration).

4. Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act deals with the opinion of the expert. Section 74 deals with public document. Sec. 45 deals about the relevancy of opinion of the expert in order to form opinion by the court upon a point as to identity of handwriting or fi