The trial judge has the discretion to admit a report submitted by a government scientific expert under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a document can be read in evidence without proof of signature under Section 294(3) if its genuineness is not disputed, but the trial judge must properly consider any objections raised to the document.

1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: Heard learned advocates of both the sides.

2. THIS application is directed against the order dated March 21, 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Port Blair in Spl. Case No. 2 of 2008 thereby allowing of two applications - one application under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and another application under section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. THE short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the petitioner is facing trial in respect of charge under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 88 punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. BY allowing the first application under section 293 of the Cr PC the learned trial Judge has marked the forensic examination report as exhibit No. 12 and by allowing the application under section 294(3) of the Cr PC has marked the original sanction for prosecution as exhibit No. 13. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred.

5. NOW the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

6. SO far as the application under section 293 of the code of criminal procedure is concerned, from the materials on record, I find that the report prepared by the government scientific expert after examination or analysis of the material had been submitted by him in the course of investigation. The prosecution prayed for marking the said report as exhibit under the said section. In order to appreciate the provision of said section, the section is quoted below:

"293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts - (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf. (4) This Section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely - (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Controller of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director (Deputy Director or Assistant Director) of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government. (g) Any other Government Scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose."

7. THUS, from the sub-section 1 of section 293, I find that the trial Judge has been vested with the discretionary power to use the report submitted by a government scientific expert and the learned trial Judge has exercised such discretionary power. During argument, Mr. Tabraiz has submitted that the handwriting expert does not fall within any of the clauses as mentioned in sub-section 4 of the said section. With due respect to him, I am of the view that this submission cannot be accepted. The government handwriting expert when examined the chemical material is certainly comes within the section 293(4) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned trial Judge has rightly discussed the contentions of the parties in the impugned order. Thereafter, he has rightly concluded that the report is admissible and the said document could well be marked as exhibit. An elaborate discussion has been made by the trial Judge, in order to mark the said docu